Frontier’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications is boasting it spent $123.6 million in New York to upgrade broadband speeds, now available up to 25Mbps through bonded ADSL2+ or VDSL technologies.

Frontier’s New York customers are now offered traditional 1-6Mbps DSL, Broadband Ultra (up to 12Mbps) and Broadband Ultimate (up to 25Mbps).

Kevin Smith, senior vice president and general manager of Frontier’s New York division said 155 of Frontier’s 194 switching offices now have faster speeds available, as do 214 remote DSLAM switches. In all, Frontier now reaches 403,000 New York households with faster Internet service.

The company also spent a considerable sum in the Rochester and Chenango areas to upgrade its backbone network with interoffice 10G Ethernet Ring Protection Switching topology. Rochester remains an important center for Frontier, as its largest metropolitan market. IT software upgrades in Rochester will also help improve the national help desk and network operations.

Frontier also plans a major broadband expansion in Hamilton County with broadband grant funds that will improve the company’s backbone between Eagle Bay and Gloversville. That will introduce 25Mbps service to more than half of the households in the immediate area.

Frontier claims it intends to further expand broadband to 85 percent of its service areas nationwide, including those it acquired from Verizon Communications.

Burdette: Won’t release a publicly funded report to a reporter he considers “dangerous.”

A damning report criticizing West Virginia’s use of $126.3 million in federal stimulus tax dollars to expand broadband in the state may never be made public because it might “be embarrassing to some people.”

State taxpayers funded the $118,000 review but they cannot read the results because Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s administration has declared the report confidential.

Once again, the Charleston Gazette’s Eric Eyre was promptly on the case asking Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette why the state wants to keep the findings secret.

“The documents may be embarrassing to some people . . .  . Embarrassing because it was someone’s opinion,” Burdette told Eyre. “It was a specific document, citing specific companies, and making very specific suggestions to me.”

The newspaper did glean some information from its Freedom of Information request to the state — it learned of the existence of the consultant’s document and his criticism of some of the players involved in the broadband expansion effort.

But Burdette won’t name names, other than to say the consultant wasn’t targeting the governor’s office for criticism. Possible companies that could be in the report include various equipment vendors and consultants tied to technology companies including Verizon and Cisco. It could also target Frontier Communications, the largest grant recipient.

Burdette decided on his own he didn’t like the report’s findings and dismissed requests to release copies to the public because he claimed it was an “internal memorandum” not required to be released under state law.

“”There’s some criticism of the players in there that I don’t accept,” Burdette told the newspaper. “I had the memo drafted, but I didn’t use it. It was assumptions and making recommendations. At the end of the day, I didn’t agree with their assessment.”

That decision promptly sparked West Virginia’s House Minority Leader Tim Armstead (R-Kanawha) to demand the release of all documents related to the taxpayer-funded broadband stimulus program, noting the federal government administered program requires grant recipients to be open and transparent about how taxpayer funds are spent.

A secret report about that very subject does not meet that requirement, according to Armstead.

“When you have a project, and you’re talking about millions of dollars in spending, and there are questions about whether those funds were efficiently spent, the public has a right to know about it,” Armstead told the Gazette. “It’s insulting to tell the public they have to pay for something and they can’t see it. The public paid for that report.”

Armstead has introduced a bill that would drop the exemption from the Freedom of Information Act Burdette cited to keep the report secret.

When Eyre asked Burdette why he won’t release the report, Burdette responded, “Because you’re dangerous.”

Last week, Tomblin’s administration abruptly cancelled a statewide “broadband summit,” fearing ongoing scrutiny of the broadband funding project and how the money was spent would be the main topic of discussion.

Find the Frontier Fiber

After spending tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to wire more than 500 miles of fiber broadband cable in public buildings across West Virginia, Frontier is allegedly withholding detailed engineering maps detailing the new fiber network from its competitors.

The Charleston Gazette’s Eric Eyre has kept a close watch on broadband stimulus funding in West Virginia, and the circus of controversy surrounding how the money has been spent.

But now that Frontier’s taxpayer-funded institutional fiber network has been built, efforts to install Internet connections to end users has become complicated… unless you choose Frontier Communications as your vendor.

State Broadband Deployment Council member Jim Martin from Citynet has been a vocal critic of the broadband spending priorities in West Virginia for several years. He’s particularly irritated taxpayer funds have been effectively diverted to Frontier to build a modern fiber network that mostly benefits Frontier and its shareholders. Now his company wants to see if it can use the new fiber network to connect more West Virginians to fiber Internet service, but Martin claims he has been given the runaround by Frontier, state officials, and a broadband council that includes a Frontier executive as a member.

“A number of providers have inquired about where that fiber is located so they can expand broadband to customers,” Martin told the Gazette. “The engineering maps are important so they will know exactly where the fiber is connected, and so they can tap it.”

Only Martin cannot get the detailed engineering maps he needs. Eyre describes the high-tech equivalent of “button, button, who’s got the button?”

Martin started asking about the maps eight months ago. State officials overseeing the broadband expansion project promised to check into his request, but they haven’t released the engineering maps.

On Wednesday, Frontier executive Dana Waldo, who also serves on the Broadband Deployment Council, told Martin to request the maps from the state “broadband grant implementation team,” which heads the broadband expansion project.

“Those are requests that have to go to the implementation team,” said Waldo, who heads Frontier’s West Virginia operations. “It provides for a consistent process.”

However, Gale Given, who serves on the project team and heads the state’s Office of Technology, referred Martin to Frontier.

“If you need detailed engineering maps,” Given said, “it’s my understanding the [broadband project] team is not going to produce those.”

Given noted that less-detailed maps are available on the state’s broadband project website.

“If you need a specific area,” she said, “tell us the specific area you need.”

Martin says the maps on the website mentioned are hand-drawn Google Maps, unsuitable to work with because they lack detail.

Frontier Communications is hoping to capitalize on cable operators alienating customers with extra modem fees and the increasing cost of cable broadband with a new offer it claims is free from hidden charges and other gotcha’s.

Frontier’s “Simple Choice” offers DSL broadband at speeds up to 6Mbps for $19.99 a month with the promise of an “end to confusing Internet bills” loaded with modem rental fees, contracts, or other “plan-cuffs” that “require a law degree to understand.” Frontier also offers to double your speeds for $10 more per month.

“It gives consumers an awesome amount of flexibility and choice,” said Cecilia K. McKenney, executive vice president of administrative services at Frontier. “By offering new broadband speed tiers to residential and commercial customers and eliminating contracts and early termination fees on our residential offers, we are truly simplifying the broadband experience.”

The offer includes a three-year price lock on voice and broadband, a free wireless router, no contract and no early termination fees. There is no Internet activation fee where a free self-installation kit is available.

But despite the promises of no tricks or traps, Frontier couldn’t help themselves in the fine print accompanying the offer:

1. The offer is only available to customers subscribing to a “qualifying package of Frontier residential local service with calling features and long distance.” This means you must keep a Frontier voice landline with an added-cost long distance and feature package (eg. Caller ID, Call Waiting, voicemail, etc.) In Rochester, N.Y., a landline with qualifying features starts at $31 a month before taxes and fees.
2. A $49.99 “Internet installation fee” is payable if a self-install kit is not available.
3. A $9.99 “broadband processing fee” applies if/when you disconnect your broadband service.
4. Taxes, governmental, and “other Frontier-imposed surcharges” that go unspecified also apply.
5. Frontier does not guarantee you will actually receive 6Mbps service. Speeds will vary depending on local line conditions.

Residents in mountainous western North Carolina have been frustrated by broadband availability maps from the Federal Communications Commission that suggest broadband service is plentiful and fast. But on the ground, customers trying to sign up for Internet access the FCC says is readily available is anything but.

The FCC’s National Broadband Map has been repeatedly criticized by broadband advocates for relying on voluntary data supplied by Internet Service Providers — data that has often proved incomplete, exaggerated, or just plain inaccurate.

Wally Bowen, executive director of Asheville’s Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), wants to show the FCC its broadband map is out of touch with the real world. MAIN has announced a new website that will let western North Carolina residents test and report the real broadband speeds they are getting from providers to the FCC. If no broadband service is available at all, residents can report that as well.

“Based on our experience, we believe the FCC is underestimating the scope of this problem,” said Bowen, an advocate for Internet access in rural areas. “The FCC’s estimate is based primarily on data provided by the cable and telephone companies.”

With a growing amount of federal money available to wire unserved areas, phone and cable companies may have a vested interest exaggerating their coverage areas and Internet speeds to stop would-be competitors from entering their territories and building new networks. New providers could find a very enthusiastic customer base of more than 48,000 aggravated residents in 16 counties in western North Carolina that have no broadband options at all.

“This new website empowers citizens to compare their real-life experience with the FCC data, but more importantly, it dissects the broadband problem, provides ideas for solving it, and shows citizens how to add their voices to the policy debate,” said Bowen.

Bowen believes profit-minded private companies are unlikely to ever be enthusiastic about wiring rural communities when larger profits can be earned in larger cities.

“Solving this problem isn’t rocket science,” said Bowen. “We’ve seen this movie before. Seventy-five years ago, for-profit electric utilities left rural America in the dark, so Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act and allowed local communities to solve the problem themselves by creating nonprofit electric cooperatives.”

But federal funds are off-limits if another provider already claims to offer service in an area, no matter how poorly they deliver it. Many large cable and phone companies have also worked to ban community-owned broadband networks from ever getting off the ground with the passage of corporate-sponsored bills passed by state legislatures. That leaves rural residents waiting endlessly for the telephone company to get around to providing some level of broadband service.

Problems with Frontier Communications’ DSL in the region tells the story:

Paul Manogue lives in an area considered “served” by Frontier Communications. The phone company sold him 3Mbps service, but after installation, Manogue found Frontier locked down his DSL modem to 1.5Mbps, the fastest speed his telephone line could comfortably handle. Today, Manogue pays $60.98 for 1.5Mbps service that has since further degraded. Today his top speed is 1Mbps or less, even though his monthly bill remains the same. His broadband connection does not come close to the 4/1Mbps minimum speed the FCC expects from today’s rural broadband networks.

“We have been bluntly told [by Frontier] that the level of service we receive is what we pay for,” Manogue told MAIN. Manogue has no other options.

Bill Duffell of Burningtown thinks Frontier broke its promise to deliver broadband where Verizon, his old provider, refused. He is still waiting, along with a number of other residents, for even basic DSL.

“Frontier promised to bring high-speed Internet access to remote areas of western North Carolina within three years,” he said. “They have not done this and now tell me there are no plans to bring high-speed Internet to the area. Internet access via satellite costs me $129.99 per month with Exede/WildBlue and is weather dependent.”

Allen in Madison County says Frontier delivered tolerable service until six months ago, when his speeds began to drop.

“The breaking point was when I was going to upload a 30 minutes video and found out it was going to take over 13 hours to upload.” Allen says. “I called Frontier and they [told me I was] ‘in a high volume area.'”

Anyone considering launching a competitive broadband service to improve the online experience of Manogue, Duffell, Allen and others will not qualify for any federal assistance because Frontier, the incumbent provider, already provides DSL broadband. Frontier also receives significant aid from the Connect America Fund — up to $775 to extend broadband to each individual home or business it earlier deemed unprofitable to serve. Each additional connection risks slowing down every other connection in the immediate area if Frontier does not maintain regular upgrades.

Two of the largest phone companies in the country — AT&T and Verizon — have both refused CAF money altogether. AT&T sees a bigger financial opportunity disbanding their wired telecommunications networks in rural America and forcing customers to switch to more costly (and much more profitable) wireless data services.

“The refusal of Connect America funding by the big carriers, plus their plans to abandon their wired networks in rural areas, is a policy earthquake that’s been ignored by corporate media,” Bowen said.