Rogers is serving up its Ultimate Internet service, with speeds up to 150/10Mbps, by challenging some of Canada’s biggest athletes to try and beat the company’s broadband speeds.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Rogers Ultimate Bundle Challenge.flv[/flv]

Tennis Pro Milos Raonic: For Milos’ challenge, we set up a tennis court in a Toronto warehouse, with a “play” button target at one end.  We challenged Milos to serve the ball and hit the target to play a song, faster than we could download it using Rogers Ultimate Internet. Let’s not forget Milos is well known for his powerful serve, reaching 250 km/hr. He has also served more aces than any other player so far in 2012. Does Rogers Ultimate Internet have a chance against a champion like Milos?  (1 minute)

Apparently more often than not, judging from Rogers’ video. But one thing Raonic has going for him, as a human being, is no usage cap. As our loyal reader Alex points out, Rogers’ Ultimate Internet only includes a downright piddly 250GB a month, which is quite a little for customers paying just shy of $123 a month for Internet access. Rogers slaps a $0.50/GB overlimit fee on this tier, with a maximum of $100.

That leaves super-premium customers feeling like they can take Rogers’ screaming fast Internet service on a 15-lane highway with a 250kph speed limit for around five kilometers before hitting the toll booth.

Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.

Frontier’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications has boosted speeds for some customers in 28 communities in Appalachian Ohio, but Stop the Cap! readers report actually qualifying to get faster broadband can be hit or miss.

Frontier has deployed ADSL2+ bonding technology in several exchanges throughout the region, which means customers can potentially double their current broadband speeds. The company says it will now sell residential customers up to 12/2Mbps and business customers up to 15/2Mbps DSL.

“With Frontier’s recent deployment of the latest broadband technology, residential customers can get the speeds they need to stream high-definition videos, run multiple devices, do online gaming and surf the net without lag,” said Dave Davidson, senior vice president and general manager for Frontier’s Ohio operations. “The ADSL 2+ Bonding technology also allows us to offer business customers super-fast speed that’s perfect for sending large files and for videoconferencing.”

The communities where Frontier recently deployed technology for increased broadband speeds in Appalachian Ohio include:

• Central Ohio — Logan
• Eastern Ohio — Bowerston, Byesville, Cambridge, Cooperdale, Flushing, Freeport, Knoxville, Lowell, Lower Salem, North Georgetown, New Philadelphia
• Southern Ohio — Albany, Athens, Portsmouth, Guysville, Wellston, Idaho, Jackson, Lucasville, New Marshfield, Otway, Pomeroy, Shade, Piketon, Wellston
• Southwest Ohio — Felicity, Manchester

But several Stop the Cap! readers in Ohio told us even though their communities are on Frontier’s upgrade list, they still don’t qualify for anything above 3-5Mbps service.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: Frontier — “Rightsizing” Our Broadband Revenue in Barely-Competitive Markets, Even When It Costs Us Customers

“We have been very disciplined with our [data] pricing and really trying to make sure that we are moving the prices up in a right direction and looking at customers who are paying way below where they should be,” Donald R. Shassian, chief financial officer and executive vice president of Frontier Communications told investors on a conference call earlier this month. “They are not a valued customer. If we can’t get them up, we are sort of letting them disconnect off, if you would, and it’s enabling us to be more disciplined.”

That “direction” has meant higher bills for some long-standing customers that suddenly lost discounts or service credits. One common example is Frontier’s mandatory broadband modem rental fee, increasingly turning up on customer bills even though they own their own equipment or had previously arranged a fee waiver. Ex-Verizon customers were particularly hard hit when Frontier switched to its own billing platform. Just about every customer has also been impacted by Frontier’s “junk fees,” including company surcharges that effectively raise the price of the service.

As a result of higher pricing and dissatisfaction with the quality of service, some customers have disconnected, and the company recently reported second quarter profits were down 44%, offset by slightly higher earnings from higher bills.

The New Frontier

Frontier Communications has enormously expanded its reach over the past few years. Frontier’s original “legacy” service areas were dwarfed in 2010 by the company’s acquisition of 4.8 million landlines from Verizon Communications.

Frontier’s Combined Service Map — Areas in red are “legacy” Frontier service areas. Those in blue were acquired in 2010 from Verizon. (click to enlarge)

Frontier roughly tripled in size as a result, and the huge spike in customers delivered four straight quarters of triple-digit revenue growth. But the transition for ex-Verizon customers has not been easy. Customers endured billing errors, service plan confusion, and service quality issues as Frontier got up to speed managing Verizon’s landline network. A significant number of those customers have had enough and are switching to other providers.

West Virginia is the best place to study the contrast between Frontier’s failures and successes. A large number of service problems and lengthy outages plagued the state after Frontier took charge of a landline network Verizon treated as an afterthought. Over at least a decade, Verizon allowed its landline network to deteriorate to abysmal condition in several areas of the state. Little was invested to upgrade service, and Verizon ultimately left West Virginia with one of the lowest national broadband service penetration rates — about 60 percent.

Verizon’s priorities were elsewhere: spend millions on FiOS fiber upgrades in larger, urban markets while letting rural landline networks stagnate. Eventually, Verizon’s management team decided it was no longer worth hanging on to these low priority service areas and began selling them off. FairPoint Communications acquired Verizon customers in northern New England and Frontier bought mostly rural midwestern and western territories long struck from Verizon’s priority list.

Wilderotter

Frontier’s key argument for acquiring Verizon landlines was that the company could bank on deploying broadband to a much larger percentage of customers than Verizon ever bothered to serve.

Frontier places a very high priority on broadband, because the company can significantly boost the average revenue it earns from each customer by providing the service. With Frontier often the only home broadband choice around in its most rural markets, the company can charge whatever it wants for DSL service, tempered only by how much customers can afford to pay. Broadband is also a proven customer-keeper, an important consideration for any company facing ongoing losses from customers dumping landlines for cell phones.

Since its acquisition, Frontier has been aggressively deploying rural broadband in the former Verizon territories — typically the cheapest form it can deliver — 1-3Mbps ADSL service. Frontier considers its legacy service areas already well-covered, claiming around 93 percent of customers can already subscribe to Frontier DSL.

In states like West Virginia, the fact anyone is supplying anything resembling broadband has been well-received by those who have never had the service before. But where competition exists, Frontier has been losing ground (and customers) as cable competitors provide more consistent, higher speeds and quality of service.

The frustration is especially acute in the Mountain State. Steve Andrews, a Beckley resident complained, “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.” Andrews added that on most days his Frontier-provided broadband provides only around 800kbps, not the advertised 3Mbps.

Frontier Admits It Uses Government (Your) Money to Expand Broadband Where It Would Have Expanded Service on Its Own… Eventually

Frontier Communications was by far the most enthusiastic participant in the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF). This subsidy program currently covers $775 of the cost to extend broadband service to a currently unserved customer. Frontier agreed to accept nearly $72 million from the program, which commits the company to offering at least 4Mbps broadband service to an additional 92,877 homes and businesses around the country.

But Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, admitted Frontier would have eventually spent its own money to extend service to those rural customers without a subsidy:

“Get broadband out faster to a bunch of customers that we would have built anyway, at some point in time. And it also accomplishes the objectives of using the funds that are available from the FCC. We actually could have taken more money…. So we felt good about it. We totally understand why the other carriers made the decisions they made because we didn’t — we’re not building anything on our legacy markets. So it’s the money. It’s all in the acquired properties where we still had pretty low penetration with enough density to support the parameters that the FCC put in place.”

The fund, paid for by telephone customers nationwide through a surcharge on customer bills, will also subsidize a lucrative business opportunity for Frontier, according to Wilderotter.

“These are unserved locations that really are not competitive at all,” Wilderotter told investors. “So there’s no competition in those areas. So we’re pretty excited about it. We think that this is going to be good for Frontier and good overall.”

More than $38 million of the total broadband subsidy Frontier received will be spent in 30 counties in just one state: Wisconsin. Among other locations where Frontier will spend the money:

• 1 Arizona county
• 2 California counties
• 1 Florida county
• 5 Idaho counties
• 25 Illinois counties
• 2 Indiana counties
• 26 Michigan counties
• 2 Nevada counties
• 8 New York counties
• 1 North Carolina county
• 8 Ohio counties
• 5 Oregon counties
• 2 Tennessee counties
• 7 Washington counties
• 25 West Virginia counties

Trying to Hang Onto Customers Frontier Already Has… With Serious Speed Boosts

Frontier’s speed plans through 2013.

One of the loudest and most consistent complaints Frontier broadband customers mention is the slow speeds they receive from Frontier’s DSL. Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps in rural areas, up to 10Mbps in urban areas. But in fact many customers report their speeds are much lower than advertised. Data from the FCC’s national broadband speed measurement program bears this out. Frontier was the only measured provider in the United States that has been losing ground in promised broadband speed and performance.

Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.

In highly competitive, urban markets Frontier will deploy VDSL2 technology which can support significantly faster and more reliable Internet speeds. In more rural markets, bonded ADSL 2+ will deliver speeds of 10Mbps or better to customers currently stuck with around 1-2Mbps speed.

Daniel J. McCarthy, president and chief operating officer:

• We expect our 20Mbps service to move from 28% of residential households today to 42% by year-end and then 52% by the end of 2013;
• The 12Mbps services planned to increase from 33% of homes today to 51% by year-end and 60% by 2013;
• And the 6Mbps service is planned to increase from 57% of homes today to 74% by year-end and 80% by 2013.

The new speeds will not come free of charge. Customers will be marketed speed upgrades for additional monthly fees.

Customers will also discover Frontier has been simplifying its packages and moving away from high-value promotional offers that bundled a free laptop, television, or satellite dish in return for a lengthy contract. Today, the company is emphasizing increasing discounts for customers subscribing to two or more services that include telephone/long distance, broadband, and satellite television.

Speeds Going Up, Employees (and their salaries) Going Down

Finally, Frontier executives told investors they are scouring the company looking for cost savings. They appear to have identified around $100 million worth, a good portion of which will come from employees facing job cuts or salary reductions.

Wilderotter said she is focusing on call center workers, retiree positions, and “tech op” savings.

“We still have some bubble workforce in the call centers that will continue to go away,” Wilderotter told Wall Street. “We have a number of employees, too, that are going to be retiring over these next several months. And our goal is not to replace any of those retirees either.”

One of the best examples of this cost savings, according to unions representing Frontier employees, is the forthcoming closure of an Idaho-based call center in Coeur d’Alene. More than 100 workers, average age 55, will lose their $15-21/hour jobs Sept. 18 while Frontier prepares to leverage cheaper labor in South Carolina.

Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.

Indianola, Iowa has relied on community-owned and non-profit Indianola Municipal Utilities (IMU) to deliver gas and electric service to the community of 15,000 for more than 100 years. Now customers in south-central Iowa will soon be able to purchase broadband service from the utility as it prepares to open its fiber-to-the-home network to residential customers.

Partnering with Mahaska Communication Group (MCG), IMU will be in the triple-play business of phone, broadband, and cable television by October.

Iowa’s public broadband network has served institutional and large commercial users since being installed in the late 1990s. But residential services were not available until recently.

Wholesale service comes primarily from Iowa Network Services via a SONET protected fiber optic ring, with redundant access going from and to Indianola. Multiple direct connections to Tier 1 backbone providers also ensure reliability and speed.

MCG intends to compete against cable providers like Mediacom and phone companies that include CenturyLink and Frontier Communications. MCG will market three broadband services in Indianola:

• 25/25Mbps – Available for as little as $5/month when bundled with a triple-play package including phone and television service;
• 50/50Mbps – Targeting homes with multiple users.  Download a 2 GB movie file in 1 minute;
• 100/100Mbps – For multiple users with high bandwidth demands and business customers. Download a 2 GB file in 30 seconds.

The triple play package, including 25/25Mbps broadband, TV and phone service will sell for $99.95 a month. That is the ongoing rate, not an introductory teaser that expires after 6-12 months. Standalone broadband customers can purchase 25/25Mbps for $39.95 a month. Upgrading broadband speed will be fast and affordable: $5 a month extra for 50/50Mbps service, $10 a month more for 100/100Mbps service.

Mediacom charges considerably more for its broadband service, which has vastly slower upstream speeds and usage caps. CenturyLink locally provides 1-3Mbps DSL service for many customers in the area.

MCG promotes its forthcoming service as a vast improvement over what phone and cable companies sell locally:

• The network is locally owned and operated and their employees live and work in the region. MCG does not use offshore call centers for customer support;
• MCG has no contracts, term commitments, or early cancellation penalty fees;
• No usage limits or speed throttles — and the speeds are fast in both directions;
• No introductory prices that leave customers with a higher bill after 6-12 months.

The municipal utility says it welcomed other Internet Service Providers, including CenturyLink and Mediacom, to sell services over their public fiber network. Neither provider has shown any interest.

[flv width=”640″ height=”450″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Indianola Iowa Fiber 3-29-10.flv[/flv]

Introducing Indianola, Iowa and its new community-owned fiber to the home network, an important upgrade for a community 15 miles from Des Moines. (4 minutes)