An avalanche of iPhones is to blame for AT&T's wireless problems, according to a Slate columnist

Telecommunications companies love people like Farhad Manjoo.  He’s a technology columnist for Slate, and he’s concerned with the congestion on AT&T’s wireless network caused by Apple iPhone owners using their phones ‘too much and ruining AT&T’s service for everyone else.’  Manjoo has a solution — do away with AT&T’s flat data pricing for the iPhone and implement a $10 price increase for any customer exceeding 400 megabytes of usage per month. For those using less than 400 megabytes, he advocates for a “pay for what you use” billing model.  Will AT&T adopt true consumption billing, a usage cap, or just another $10 price increase?  History suggests the latter two are most likely.

Stop the Cap! reader Mary drew our attention to Manjoo’s piece, which predictably has been carried through the streets by cheering astroturf websites connected with the telecommunications industry who just love the prospect of consumers paying more money.  They’ve called the organizations that work to fight against such unfair Internet Overcharging schemes “neo-Marxist,” ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose metered broadband service and still don’t know the words to ‘The Internationale.’

Manjoo’s description of the problem itself has problems.

His argument is based on the premise that the Apple iPhone is virtually a menace on AT&T’s network.  He blames the phone for AT&T customers having trouble getting their calls through or for slow speeds on AT&T’s data network.

Every iPhone/AT&T customer must deal with the consequences of a slowed-down wireless network. Not every customer, though, is equally responsible for the slowdown. At the moment, AT&T charges $30 a month for unlimited mobile Internet access on the iPhone. That means a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB. I’ve got a better plan—one that superusers won’t like but that will result in better service, and perhaps lower bills, for iPhone owners: AT&T should kill the all-you-can-eat model and start charging people for how much bandwidth they use.

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.)

First, and perhaps most importantly, AT&T not only voluntarily, but enthusiastically sought an exclusive arrangement with Apple to sell the iPhone.  For the majority of Americans, using an iPhone means using AT&T as their wireless carrier.  If AT&T cannot handle the customer demand (and the enormous revenue it earns from them), perhaps it’s time to end the exclusivity arrangement and spread the iPhone experience to other wireless networks in the United States.  I have not seen any wireless provider fearing the day the iPhone will be available for them to sell to customers.  Indeed, the only fear comes from AT&T pondering what happens when their exclusivity deal ends.

Second, problems with voice calling and dropped calls go well beyond iPhone owners ‘using too much data.’  It’s caused by less robust coverage and insufficient capacity at cell tower sites.  AT&T added millions of new customers from iPhone sales, but didn’t expand their network at the required pace to serve those new customers.  A number of consumers complaining about AT&T service not only mention dropped calls, but also inadequate coverage and ‘fewer bars in more places.’  That has nothing to do with iPhone users.  Congestion can cause slow speeds on data networks, but poor reception can create the same problems.

Third, the salvation of data network congestion is not overcharging consumers for service plans.  The answer comes from investing some of the $1,000+ AT&T earns annually from the average iPhone customer back into their network.  To be sure, wireless networks will have more complicated capacity issues than wired networks do, but higher pricing models for wireless service already take this into account.

Business Week covered AT&T’s upgrade complications in an article on August 23rd:

Many of AT&T’s 60,000 cell towers need to be upgraded. That could cost billions of dollars, and AT&T has kept a lid on capital spending during the recession—though it has made spending shifts to accommodate skyrocketing iPhone traffic. Even if the funds were available now, the process could take years due to the hassle and time needed to win approval to erect new towers and to dig the ditches that hold fiber-optic lines capable of delivering data. And time is ticking. All carriers are moving to a much faster network standard called LTE that will begin being deployed in 2011. Once that transition has occurred, the telecom giant will be on a more level playing field.

And there are limits to how fast AT&T can move. While it may take only a few weeks to deploy new-fangled wireless gear in a city’s cell towers, techies could spend months tilting antennas at the proper angle to make sure every square foot is covered.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports also points out a good deal of the iPhone’s data traffic never touches AT&T’s wireless network and he debunked a piece in The Wall Street Journal that proposed some of the same kinds of pricing and policy changes Manjoo suggests:

iPhone users are using Wi-Fi 42% of the time and the $30 price point is already a $10 bump from the first generation iPhone. The Journal also ignores the absolutely staggering profits from SMS/MMS, and the fact that AT&T posted a net income of $3.1 billion for just the first three months of the year. That’s even after the network upgrades the Journal just got done telling us make unlimited data untenable.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has been making the rounds lately complaining that a wireless apocalypse is afoot, telling any journalist who’ll listen that the wireless market is “collapsing” and/or “grinding to a halt.” Why? Because as new subscriber growth slows and the market saturates, incredible profits for carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless may soon be downgraded to only somewhat incredible. Carriers may soon have to start competing more heavily on pricing, driving stock prices down. That’s great for you, but crappy for Moffett’s clients.

You’ll note that neither the Journal nor Moffett provide a new business model to replace the $30 unlimited plan, but the intentions are pretty clear if you’ve been playing along at home. As on the terrestrial broadband front, investors see pure per-byte billing as the solution to all of their future problems, as it lets carriers charge more money for the same or less product (ask Time Warner Cable). Of course as with Mr. Moffett’s opinions on network upgrades, what’s best for Mr. Moffett quite often isn’t what’s best for consumers.

If AT&T doesn’t have the financial capacity or willingness to appropriately grow their network, inevitably customers will take their wireless business elsewhere, and perhaps Apple will see the wisdom of not giving the company exclusivity rights any longer.

Manjoo’s proposals (except the $10 rate increase, which they’ll love) would almost certainly never make it beyond the discussion stage.  A pricing model that automatically places consumers using little data into a less expensive price tier, or relies on a true consumption “pay for exactly what you use” pricing model would cannibalize AT&T’s revenue.  Past Internet Overcharging pricing has never been about saving customers money — they just charge more to designated “heavy users” for the exact same level of service.  Need more money?  Redefine what constitutes a “heavy user” or just wait a year when today’s data piggies are tomorrow’s average users.  Now they can all pay more.

The average iPhone user already pays a premium for their AT&T iPhone experience — an average $90 a month for a combined mandatory voice and data plan — costs higher than those paid by other AT&T customers.  AT&T accounted for the anticipated data usage of the iPhone in setting the pricing for monthly service.

The biggest data consumers aren’t smartphone or iPhone users. That designation belongs to laptop or netbook owners using wireless mobile networks for connectivity.  Those plans universally are usage capped at 5 gigabytes per month, far higher than the 400 megabyte cap Manjoo proposes.  If AT&T felt individual iPhone customers were the real issue, they would have already usage capped the iPhone data plan.  Instead, they just increased the price, ostensibly to invest the difference in expanding their network.

Perhaps at twice the price, everything would be nice.

Manjoo admits AT&T does not release exact usage numbers, but it’s obvious a phone equipped to run any number of add-on applications that the iPhone can will use more data than a cumbersome phone forcing customers to browse using a number keypad.  That in and of itself does not mean iPhone users are “data hogs.”  In reality, 400 megabytes of usage a month on a network also handling wireless broadband customers with a 5 gigabyte cap is a pittance.  That’s 10 times less than a customer can use on an AT&T wireless broadband-equipped netbook, and still be under their monthly allowance.

Here’s a better idea: end the monopoly AT&T has on the iPhone in the United States. That would immediately do a lot more for AT&T customers, as the so-called “data hogs” that hate AT&T flee off their network.

Manjoo’s alternatives are a “pay $10 more” solution that won’t save consumers money and “pay exactly for what you use” plan that AT&T will never accept.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

BendBroadband introduces a new logo and tagline

BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3.  Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be good.”

What some BendBroadband customers didn’t realize was that dog comes with a leash.

“The new speeds sound great, right until you read the fine print and discover the awful usage allowances they attach to them,” writes Seth, a Stop the Cap! reader.  “That’s Bend (Over) Broadband.”

BendBroadband plans range from 8Mbps service for $36.95 a month ($46.95 broadband-only), 14Mbps service for $44.95 a month ($54.95 broadband-only), and a forthcoming Gold 25Mbps plan for $54.95 a month ($64.95 broadband-only).  The 14Mbps service represents a speed increase for their current Silver plan.  All of these plans have a 100GB usage allowance, with a $1.50/GB overlimit penalty.

A new Platinum plan will offer 60Mbps service for $89.95 a month ($99.95 broadband-only), yet only incrementally bumps the usage cap up by 50GB, to 150GB per month.

BendBroadband's dog comes with a leash... 100GB Usage Caps

Company officials seemed pleased with themselves.

“Who would of believed ten years ago that we would have these types of speeds available?” said Frank Miller, the company’s Chief Technology Officer. “60Mbps…that’s one fast puppy!”

“That dog (logo) has broadband rabies and needs to be put down,” replies Seth’s wife Angelica, who telecommutes and does most of her work from home.

“Central Oregon can be wowed by the speed, but what good is it if you can’t use it without running into their usage caps and limits,” she asks.

“I’d pay for the premium tiers and get on a waiting list today if they did away with the usage caps.  There is no way I am paying to support a company that sticks usage caps on their customers and makes me waste time doublechecking how much I’ve used this month,” she said.

Seth and Angelica have taken a pass on BendBroadband’s dog show and are sticking with the local phone company’s DSL service until something better comes along.

“The speed isn’t the best, but at least you can use the service and not have to worry about it,” Seth writes.

Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Photo by K. Ciappa for GPTMC

The city of Philadelphia will witness a three-way battle for your broadband dollar in the coming months as three competitors race to upgrade their networks to deliver the kind of “blazing fast speeds” only dreamed about in much of the rest of the country.

Comcast, the dominant cable provider in Philadelphia, today announced 50Mbps broadband service for greater Philadelphia residents for $99 a month.  The new, faster speeds are available because Comcast’s Freedom Region has been upgraded to the DOCSIS 3 standard.  Comcast’s Freedom Region includes metro Philadelphia and the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery, as well as northern Delaware and southern New Jersey.

Comcast also doubled the speeds of many of its broadband customers today.  Here’s a roundup of the affected tiers:

Performance — 12Mbps/2Mbps — $42.95/month
Performance Plus — 16Mbps/2Mbps — $52.95/month (no change of upload speed from previous tier)
Ultra — 22Mbps/5Mbps — $62.95/month
Extreme 50 — 50Mbps/10Mbps — $99/month

*DOCSIS 3 modem upgrade required.

Meanwhile, cable overbuilder RCN, which serves parts of Philadelphia and the Lehigh Valley to the west announced it was aggressively moving to upgrade its own network to DOCSIS 3, and is taking the dramatic step of dumping all of its analog channels from the lineup, switching to all-digital cable, starting in Allentown.  RCN has already confirmed it will offer up to 50Mbps service in upgraded areas, but has the capacity to expand to 100Mbps service if needed.  RCN had been planning to launch upgraded DOCSIS 3 service starting in New York and Boston, but market conditions in Philadelphia will make it necessary to expand there as well.

The newest player in town is Verizon, whose fiber to the home FiOS service is capable of the fastest download and upload speeds in the marketplace.  Verizon has offered packages with equal download and upload speeds (20Mbps/20Mbps being the most common) in the past, but is capable of achieving even faster speeds.  It currently provides 50Mbps/20Mbps service in many areas.

“We have a lot of work ahead of us. We will wire the entire city with the nation’s most advanced fiber-optic network, starting with Chestnut Hill, and we expect the first customers to have FiOS services by later this year,” Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe wrote in a blog post. “Other neighborhoods where we will begin building soon are Brewerytown, East and West Mount Airy, South Philadelphia, and the Kensington sections of the city.”

Verizon expects the entire city to be FiOS-ready by 2016, reaching about 660,000 houses and apartment buildings. It is already available in 182 communities surrounding the city.

Frontier vs. Time Warner. Frontier vs. Comcast. Frontier vs. NPG Cable. Across 24 states, passing nearly 3,000,000 households, some in America’s smallest towns and others in large cities, Frontier Communications is engaged in a battle of survival in an increasingly competitive American telecommunications marketplace.

In this series examining Frontier Communications, today’s report investigates the competitive realities of a hotly competitive telecommunications industry, becoming more concentrated by the day.    How does Frontier intend to survive and grow, and is it realistic to assume it can in an environment that demands major investments in the delivery of high quality video, low-priced telephone service, and reliable broadband that may be beyond its reach?   Yesterday, we saw how Frontier is attempting to control expenses with the plan to implement a 5GB usage cap on its broadband customers.   Today, we take a look at how Frontier attempts to maintain its market share and deal with customer defections.   Tomorrow, we take a closer look at how quickly Frontier’s telephone line business is losing ground to its competitors.

Frontier’s Background At A Glance

NPG Cable's Rate Card & Channel Lineup In Bullhead City, Arizona. How much of a competitive threat is a cable company without a spellchecker?

Frontier Communications, formerly Citizens Communications, primarily runs originally independent telephone companies in rural and exurban areas bypassed by the former Bell System. The company’s most significant presence is in the 585 area code, home to Rochester, New York. But from Elk Grove, California and Bullhead City, Arizona eastward to the AuSable Valley in central New York to Bluefield, West Virginia, a significant number of Frontier customers are also in some of America’s  small towns and cities.

The size of a community where Frontier operates is often indicative of how much competition the company faces.  Some of Frontier’s most difficult challenges can be found in the  Rochester, N.Y. metropolitan area, numbering nearly 1,000,000 people, where a well entrenched Time Warner has made deep inroads into Frontier’s telephone access line business, eats Frontier for breakfast in the video delivery business, and has been a dominant player in the broadband marketplace since Road Runner arrived  in 1998.

In more rural communities, Frontier often has it much easier,  free from  cable competition  in some  areas, or  competing with a small independent cable company that may be relying on its own aging infrastructure and cannot afford to engage in price and service wars. Where Frontier stands as the lone player or only faces token competition from a small cable company, consumers will likely find  lower speed broadband at higher-than-average prices.

The Threat From Big Cable

Comcast's Product Bundles Threaten Frontier In Many of Their Service Territories

The cable television industry’s entry into telephone service  is among the biggest threats Frontier faces in maintaining their traditional primary revenue source: residential and business wired telephone lines.

Deploying  voice over IP technology, Comcast and Time Warner, the nation’s largest cable operators, have made significant inroads into Frontier’s telephone business where they compete.   Now, even smaller players in the cable industry are prepared to offer voice over IP service to customers.

Joining cable at the table are  mobile telephone companies like Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and AT&T which are also eroding Frontier’s  phone line business  as more people in America  rely exclusively on their mobile phone for telephone service.

How Cable Companies Pick Off Frontier’s Customers

Product Bundling & Discounting: The most important component of cable’s strategy against Frontier is cable’s product bundle, combining a voice over IP telephone line, a cable television package, and a high speed data product. Usually marketed as a “triple play” or “all the best” package, consumers are offered discounts based on the number of components of a package they combine. The more components, the greater the discount.

The product bundle offered by the cable industry has a competitive advantage because cable companies almost always have a more advanced network to deliver these products. Throughout the 1990s, most cable systems spent millions rebuilding their systems to accommodate increasing bandwidth requirements.   The result is a considerably larger pipeline used to deliver data, video, and telephone services.

Frontier’s network is considerably more dated, largely dependent on copper wire strung on telephone poles. While the company has made significant investments in their own  network, including some fiber optics,  in the end, they still rely on the same copper wire infrastructure the industry has used for nearly 100 years to connect to your home or office.

AT&T's U-verse service can deliver the goods over copper wire, but you need deep pockets to develop and deploy this technology. Are Frontier's deep enough?

Although this copper network is suitable for traditional telephone service, and can usually deliver a respectable data service over DSL, the video component has been sorely lacking. While AT&T is testing its U-verse video-over-copper technology in limited markets, Frontier is stuck  reselling Dish Network, the  smaller player in the satellite television marketplace.

Many consumers are resistant to satellite dishes of any size attached to their homes, and the cable industry’s response to Frontier has been the same as to DirecTV and Dish Network themselves: ugly satellite  dishes that suffer from rain/snow fade, require expensive service calls and maintenance, and a limitation on the number of TV sets you can hook up.   Also, no local channels in many areas.   In the end, most people who were even slightly uncomfortable with satellite-delivered TV elected to just stick with what they already had: cable television.

Results of the Dish Network partnership continue to be underwhelming. Sources tell Stop the Cap! the satellite service only succeeds in areas where there is no cable competitor, the customer was already a Dish Network subscriber independent of Frontier, or the incumbent cable company is hampered by a limited channel lineup, no HD channels, or exceptionally bad service. In Rochester, Frontier is actually losing more Dish Network customers than it is adding, and growth is  anemic in many other Frontier regions as well.

Frontier’s inability to provide a comparable quality television service is a critical defect in their competition with cable.

Claiming Inferior Product Quality:  The cable industry wasted no time attacking Frontier’s DSL product, accusing it of not performing consistently. Uneven telephone line quality, distance from the telephone company central office, and signal ingress (when interference or crosstalk gets into wiring and degrades the signal) can all dramatically slow a DSL customer’s  broadband speeds. The cable industry’s marketing often pillories DSL service because of its inability to offer anything close to a speed guarantee, and the fact  it is often slower than cable’s competing product no matter how good your line is.

In areas where a large cable competitor exists, traditionally  that cable operator will have the fastest speed broadband package to sell to customers in that market. This forces Frontier to compete on price.   In return for a significant discount, Frontier  usually locks customers into multi-year service agreements which discourage its customers from  switching to a competitor.   Unfortunately, the company’s inferior product bundle and  long term contract commitments have made it difficult to convince cable customers to switch to Frontier,  particularly if it means taking their video package from Dish Network.

Lampooning Questionable Marketing Practices: In Rochester, Time Warner’s marketing people have had no trouble finding new ways to attack Frontier in its advertising.   While Frontier may be able to pull off some of their hidden extra charges, long term contracts, and restrictive service policies in more rural communities, most of those practices meet strong criticism in Time Warner’s advertising.

Among the more common refrains in Time Warner ads  dismissing Frontier’s DSL  product include:

• Charging a “modem rental fee” as part of Frontier’s DSL service, even if you can supply your own DSL modem.

• Locking customers into a term commitment contract (often lasting several years) for DSL service that offers lower speeds than Time Warner’s Road Runner service and charging a substantial early termination fee for those dissatisfied with their broadband experience.

• Charging for ancillary support services like Frontier’s “Peace of Mind” that Time Warner claims to offer at no charge.

The latest decision to impose a 5GB usage cap on customers is marketing gold for the cable companies competing with Frontier, perhaps only tempered  by the fact they are also studying whether to apply their own usage caps.

Relentless Marketing: One of the fringe benefits of owning your own video distribution network is the ability to pepper your existing customers with near-constant advertising promoting your own products while denigrating the competition. Cable customers can see an average of three product promotion spots every hour from their cable company trying to convince them to upgrade, attempting to bolster customer loyalty, or simply slashing and burning whatever the telephone company or satellite dish company is offering. Frontier has  a limited ability to counter this.

In areas of significant competition, the battle usually rages in your mailbox, with  a relentless flood of  promotional postcards and mailers, as well as ad buys on local television/radio stations and local newspapers. But cable retains an important advantage because of their ability to insert advertising into basic cable channels, usually at no cost to them.   Frontier doesn’t own their video distribution network – they are reselling someone else’s.

Frontier’s Battle Plan

Welcome to DeLand, Florida: Home of Frontier's Customer Care Center

Frontier’s plan to compete with cable includes  their own marketing by mailbox, and sponsoring local community events and charities to leverage free media and consumer exposure to the company brand to nurture positive feelings  about the company.

The company also places a high priority on attempting to position themselves as “local” players in the market – a company made up of local employees who customers supposedly will interact with on a daily basis. Unfortunately for them, most customers will likely only interact with one of their customer care call centers such as the one  in DeLand, Florida which is localism IF you live, work and play in DeLand.

Frontier also maintains call centers in Henrietta, New York and Burnsville, Minnesota which are designed to replace what used to be local customer service call centers in more than a dozen  Frontier areas.   Some 500 people were hired to answer phones in DeLand for Frontier.   This begs the question how many people lost those jobs in the various local communities where Frontier operates.

Call center employees are on Frontier’s competitive front line, trying to  maintain customer loyalty, convince customers to upgrade their service packages, and above all, remain with Frontier and don’t cancel anything.

They need to maintain the battle, because cable competitors continue to erode their residential business. The company’s deactivations of high speed data services and the ongoing loss of telephone lines are considerably above the company’s own estimates.

One significant bright spot Frontier has maintained is delivering commercial broadband to businesses.

Frontier has a significant advantage in many offices, business parks, and other industrial areas bypassed by their cable competitors. Installation costs to wire a building with coaxial cable often run into the tens of thousands of dollars, an expense borne by the company, the landlord, or a combination of the two. But every business has telephone service, which usually guarantees potential access to DSL service from Frontier. Small and medium sized businesses have become loyal Frontier commercial customers because of low installation costs and a reasonable pricing plan that is typically far more cost effective than what cable is offering. Cable modem commercial access pricing models are usually tailored to a range of product speeds at prices that, when compared with what Frontier can offer, are not competitive.

Frontier’s ability to effectively compete against cable will, in the end, come down to the company’s ability to invest in their network and be able to match what is on offer from the cable operator, and new competitors yet to emerge.    Some former Baby Bell telephone companies like AT&T are investing enormous sums to leverage their existing network (their U-verse product) or starting over from scratch (Verizon’s fiber optic cable to the home FIOS project).

To date, Frontier’s status as a smaller player has meant their investments in these efforts pale in comparison to their larger brethren.   They include experimenting with deploying fiber optic cable to new housing developments and selected mass density buildings (apartments, offices) in Rochester, building community wi-fi networks to create a new market for wireless Internet access, and other investments in their network distribution system.   If they cannot invest enough, fast enough, to keep up, they will become ripe for a merger with a larger player in the market or get wiped out by the competition.

In the meantime,  to quote company chairwoman and CEO Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier intends to “stay the course” for the rest of the year.

We’ll have to wait and see if that’s good enough.