Cable operators have been looking for a way to expand their broadband service to outside the home, and Comcast, Bright House, and Time Warner Cable have found their answer: WiMax technology from Clearwire.  They’ve joined Intel and Google as minority investors, collectively owning 25% of Clearwire, after investing more than $3 billion dollars in the wireless broadband service.  What do they get for the buy-in?  The chance to market Clearwire services to their cable broadband customers for “on-the-go” broadband.

Comcast High-Speed 2go Metro service launched Tuesday in Portland, Oregon providing consumers with portable speed up to 4Mbps in Clearwire’s own 4G network service area.  Comcast customers can sign up for a promotion for $49.95 a month for one year, which includes their wired cable modem service, a Wi-Fi router, and Clearwire wireless service (regular price after the promotion is $72.95 monthly).  Customers can access the service in any Clearwire 4G service area nationwide.  Where Clearwire doesn’t offer service, customers can “roam” on Sprint’s 3G data network nationwide for an additional $20 a month more.  There are no known usage limits at this time.  Existing Comcast broadband customers in Portland can add the Clearwire-based service starting at $30 a month.

The service will work for laptops, but not mobile data devices.  Comcast’s investment in Clearwire made such a venture possible, and is expected to compete with mobile phone broadband data plans, which typically offer 5GB of service for $50 a month.

Comcast will sell service in Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia by the end of 2009.

While the service will be useful for Comcast customers who travel or who want more reliable, fast wireless data access, Clearwire’s ability to serve as a true competitor to Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House may be compromised by those partnerships.

Could Clearwire effectively create promotions and plans that could lead to customers cutting the cord on their cable broadband provider?  Should cable companies increase their investments and ownership interest in Clearwire, would it ultimately matter to them where you obtained service?

The quest for fiber-based broadband service from consumers has reached the point where many have decided to accept or decline offers to purchase property in new housing developments based on whether they’ll have access to fiber or not.  Those were the findings in a study from the Fiber to the Home Council, which surveyed more than 600 existing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) customers and 600 other broadband customers nationwide.

The results clearly show consumers love fiber optic broadband, far more than cable modems or DSL service from the phone company.

For example, 67% of FTTH users were very satisfied with their broadband speed compared to 58% of cable modem users and 46% of DSL users. A total of 70% of FTTH users were very satisfied with their Internet service up time compared to 64% of cable modem users and 55% of DSL users.

Consumers also reported that FTTH service was faster… much faster than competing technologies.  The median tested download speed from FTTH users was 10.4Mbps. FTTH tested download speed was 51% higher than cable modem service and 593% higher than DSL (DSL has abandoned the speed war, having lost that race to competing technologies, and now prevails only on price and where other alternatives are not available).

Upload speeds offered by FTTH users blew away the competition.  The average subscriber had 2.4Mbps of upload speed, which is 380% higher than cable modem users and 500% faster than DSL.

The survey also showed that robust competition, with at least one provider bringing true fiber to the home service to consumers, meant an average of six percent lower broadband bills.

Some cable and telephone industry executives downplay the lust for speed by consumers, claiming that most don’t understand the differences in speed, and don’t utilize services where speed matters most.  But the FTTH survey found entirely different results.  Not only are FTTH customers extremely loyal and happy with their service, they are reluctant to move to places that don’t offer it.

When asked to imagine purchasing a new home and given a list of five real estate development amenities, both current and non FTTH broadband users rated “Very high speed Internet from a direct fiber line” more important than other amenities such as green space/walking trails, 24 hour neighborhood patrol, a community pool, and a fitness center/club house. 69% of non FTTH users and 82% of current FTTH users said “Very high speed Internet” would be an important factor in buying a new home.

Even in this difficult economy, 49% of FTTH users said their broadband service would be the “last thing” they would give up.  Only 11% said it would be among the first things to go.

The demand is there, but the competition is not in many American communities.  Unless consumers reside in an area where an aggressive provider such as Verizon is willing to deploy fiber to the home, the chances of service arriving anytime in the near future is dismally low.  Few telephone companies are interested in deploying widespread fiber networks to consumers, and most cable operators believe their existing hybrid fiber/coaxial cable networks are “good enough” for consumers.  Only when a third player arrives in town, be it a private competitor or a municipally-owned fiber network, do telephone and cable providers get interested in performing their own fiber upgrades.

AT&T believes in its own copper-wire-based U-verse technology.  Smaller independent telephone companies are doing only limited experiments with fiber deployment, primarily to multiple dwelling units like apartment buildings and condos, and other uniform, expansive new housing developments.

Until prevailing attitudes among providers change, consumers hungering for fiber may simply have to pack up and relocate to the lucky communities that already have it, or will soon.

Without an agreement by Fairpoint’s bondholders to delay repayment of at least 95% of FairPoint’s debt, the troubled phone company could find itself in bankruptcy by the end of the year.

That is the company’s own assessment in its most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  FairPoint’s crushing debt was taken on in order to purchase the assets of Verizon Communications in three New England states — Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  Verizon has been dumping customers in less proftable areas to concentrate on more populated areas.

Since the sale, it has been one nightmare after another for consumers in those three states, dealing with a phone company called “abysmal,” and a “third-world telephone company” by its customers, and “completely unacceptable” by several state regulators.  From Vermont, where inept employees bungled even the simplest tasks of maintaining basic telephone and Internet service, to New Hampshire where incompetence forced a few businesses to seriously contemplate moving to Massachusetts just to get a telephone line installed, to Maine, where life-threatening 911 failures caused havoc, FairPoint has not proven worthy of running telephone service for any customer in New England.

“There’s no satisfaction in saying I told you so,” said Rand Wilson, a spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 in Boston. “FairPoint said their experience would be different.”

The IBEW was one of the first critics of the sale, and focused their attention directly on point – the debt the company would take on to make the deal.  They ran advertising in all of the impacted states and also pressured lawmakers to review the deal more carefully.

Audio Clip: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Radio Spots (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The IBEW has experience with bad telephone companies.  In Hawaii, their members blasted a deal where a private equity firm borrowed heavily to purchase Hawaii’s largest phone company from Verizon in 2005.  It was also a disaster for consumers, with lousy customer service, declining revenue, and eventual bankruptcy.  IBEW warned state officials pondering a Verizon-FairPoint deal about their experiences.  State officials didn’t listen.

Now those same officials are hiring consultants to prepare their states for the real possibility of FairPoint going bust by the end of the year.  Should that happen, phone service will almost certainly continue for millions of New England FairPoint customers.  But as far as a restructured FairPoint keeping all of the promises it made to get approval of the deal, residents may find those deals are disconnected or no longer in service.

Verizon is concerned about potential risks for data hacking and security breaches associated with mergers and acquisitions in undertakes.  The Verizon Business Risk Team reported that 13% of the breaches studied in 2008 involved companies undergoing transition as part of a merger or acquisition.

Verizon signaled caution to prospective Frontier Communications territories about to be spun away from Verizon:

“Mergers and acquisitions bring together not only the people and products of once separate organizations, but their technology environments as well. Integration rarely happens overnight or without a hitch.”

TheDeal.com writes Verizon has the experience to understand the risks, as both a buyer and seller.

Verizon’s selling of its operations in New England to FairPoint Communications was particularly noted, because of ongoing billing, customer care, and other transition problems, some of which are still unresolved to this day.

Charter Communications is going to have some major competition in the Massachusetts city of Groton over the next year as city officials signed a 15-year franchise agreement with Verizon Communications to bring the fiber-to-the-home service to area residents.

Verizon promised to introduce FiOS service to area residents immediately, with a build out to nearby communities taking place over a four year period.  The deal brings competitive choice to Groton, which until now has relied exclusively on Charter Cable for cable television service.

Verizon agreed to spend $112,500 to outfit four locations with broadcast equipment and provide three public access channels.  Equipment will be installed at the Town Hall for local government coverage, the local public library, the middle school Performing Arts Center and a nearby senior center.  The franchise fee will be 4.2% of local earnings and a 50 cent fee per subscriber per year, all paid to Groton’s local government.

The loudest complaint came from one resident who wanted to know why service might not be immediately available on his street.  He told local officials Charter had the “worst service” on his street and wanted the Verizon alternative immediately.