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.

At least 88 percent of Dutch consumers are getting 50Mbps from their broadband provider, with the remaining 12 percent expected to get similar speed increases within two years.

A Telecompaper survey found nearly one-third of those consumers consider 50Mbps speeds necessary and almost the same number believe they will need 200Mbps service at some point in the future.

The Netherlands has benefited from a series of provider speed upgrades which have lifted connection speeds to 50Mbps or more.

Only 12% of Dutch consumers do not already receive 50Mbps broadband service. They will have it within two years according to Dutch telecom observers.

This year, enhanced competition from fiber broadband providers have forced cable companies to boost speeds. Some providers now offer tiers as fast as 100-200Mbps, mostly over fiber networks. Two-thirds of Dutch consumers believe fiber networks are necessary to get the best speed increases.

At the end of 2012 there were 1,450,000 households connected to fiber to the home service, 440,000 more than one year before. This is reflected in the growing number of consumers reporting they have fiber broadband, which has halted the growth in cable broadband’s market share.

The report ‘Dutch Consumer Connected 2013’ is based on the Telecompaper Consumer Panel, an online survey conducted between March and May 2013 among almost 15,000 consumers aged 12-80. The report also presents the results for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Werner

Cable operators are getting ready for competition from Google and other fiber providers with an upgrade to the cable broadband standard DOCSIS that will support up to 10/1Gbps service.

Comcast chief technology officer Tony Werner told attendees at the Washington, D.C. Cable Show that DOCSIS 3.1 will deliver about a 50% improvement in spectrum efficiency.

The new standard relies on orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), a standard already used by the wireless industry to get tighter performance from existing wireless spectrum.

The cable industry’s weakness remains its broadband upstream capacity. Standards originally developed for cable broadband assume users will download far more content than upload, so the focus has always been on download speeds. Upload speeds have been anemic in comparison. Until recently, cable technicians worried they would have to dedicate considerably more bandwidth for faster upstream speeds, but with improved standards, that may no longer be true.

Time Warner Cable’s chief technology officer Mike LaJoie is convinced his company will not have to widen upstream bandwidth. Time Warner has been among the stingiest providers of broadband speed upgrades,  still offering residential customers in most service areas a maximum of 50/5Mbps service, even as Comcast has upgraded to 305Mbps in certain markets, mostly in the northeast. This week Comcast demonstrated 3Gbps broadband, primarily to prove the cable broadband platform will be able to compete with fiber technology.

LaJoie

The first trials of the new broadband standard are anticipated in 2014, with modems for sale later that year or early 2015. Comcast is expected to begin buying and deploying DOCSIS 3.1-capable modems “when it makes financial sense.”

Major speed increases will require cable companies to accelerate the transition to all-digital video platforms to free up available cable spectrum. The faster the offered speeds, the more channels must be dedicated to providing broadband. Operators don’t see a space crunch anytime soon, especially if they move towards an all-IP platform that would support all services through a giant broadband pipe.

Cox Cable, for example, is planning to move more of its analog channels to digital to free up capacity for faster broadband speeds.

But exactly when consumers will be able to use the faster speeds possible from DOCSIS 3.1 is up to your provider.

Time Warner Cable is not convinced customers even need or want 100Mbps speed, so expect some cable companies to not even attempt gigabit broadband for years to come.

LaJoie dismissed triple digit megabit speeds as a novelty that is not “very deeply penetrated” in the marketplace — marketspeak for “not attracting many customers.”

“There has not been a demonstrated appetite for it,” LaJoie said.

Insight is disappearing after Time Warner Cable bought the cable operator. It is in the process of converting subscribers to Time Warner’s own systems.

Some of more than 730,000 former Insight subscribers across Kentucky were without phone service after Time Warner Cable failed to successfully transfer them to a new platform.

Time Warner Cable had similar problems transitioning customers in Indiana, many unable to successfully navigate through a new online service agreement and e-mail address selection process.

Bob Mueller, a Florence-based financial planner, told Cincinnati.com it took nearly two days get his office line working again and his staff was still trying late Tuesday afternoon.

“We had massive problems with Insight before the changeover, and now we had problems with Time Warner,” Mueller told the newspaper. “This is not getting off to a very good start, but there aren’t a lot of other options. We’ve been at this for two days and no luck.”

Time Warner Cable denied there were any serious problems, but admitted call volumes were higher than usual. The company said it registered 40,000 new voice mail accounts throughout the state and migrated 200,000 phone customers since the weekend.

Internet customers will be moved to Time Warner Cable next week.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDRB Louisville Long Waits at TWC 6-10-13.mp4[/flv]

WDRB in Louisville noted long hold times for new Time Warner Cable customers in excess of 30 minutes. (1 minute)

Cable companies, including Time Warner Cable, are offering a mix of threats and financial incentives to keep popular cable programming away from online video competitors.

Bloomberg News today reported the private discussions primarily target upstart streaming video services from companies like Intel, Apple, and Google, which are all proposing multichannel streaming video services that could one day replace the local cable company.

All three would-be competitors have been stymied, some for years, from signing contracts with popular cable networks like HBO, USA, ESPN and Comedy Central. If a viewer wants to watch those networks, they usually have to authenticate themselves as existing cable, satellite, or telco-TV customers to get access to live and recorded programming. The cable industry prefers it that way as a customer retention tool.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted to Wall Street analysts attending this week’s Cable Show his company probably insists on contract language that bars programmers from providing content to online video services.

“We may well have ones that have that prohibition,” Britt said at the conference in Washington. “This is not a cookie-cutter kind of business.”

Some cable company contracts are more benign, only requiring programmers to license content on the same terms offered to their online competitors. Britt said some of Time Warner Cable’s contracts fall into this category.

Britt

Britt has repeatedly emphasized Time Warner wants to license content more broadly to allow the company to include it in its TV Everywhere platform, which streams video content to wireless devices. The cable operator adopted a policy in 2009 that sought to deliver content to customers on any device they wish. Restrictive contracts have kept that policy from being fully implemented.

AT&T U-verse says it won’t pay full price for cable programming sold to its online competitors.

“If they’re going to go over-the-top, then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customers,” Jeff Weber, president of content, said last month at an investor conference. “Exclusive versus non-exclusive has materially different value for our customers. And I think we would want that reflected.”

Restrictive contracts are all about protecting the existing pay television ecosystem, according to Charter’s chief financial officer, Chris Winfrey.

“It’s in everybody’s mutual interest that we are protecting the ecosystem in a way that continues to keep the value of that programming that we have and the way it’s delivered to our subscribers today,” Winfrey said added.

Consumer groups say restrictive contracts are the epitome of anticompetitive industry behavior that should be examined by the Justice Department.

“Is it anticompetitive generally? Of course it is, they are keeping programming from their competitors,” said Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge.

Satellite companies were originally in this same position, unable to carry popular cable networks on reasonable terms at fair prices until the 1992 Cable Act mandated reforms that required non-discriminatory access to cable programming. Online video providers have not yet been able to demand the same terms for their competing services.