“We’ve been talking for some time that broadband for us is not just about customer growth… it’s about revenue growth.” — Anthony Thomas, Windstream’s Chief Financial Officer

For the first time in some time, Windstream reported revenue growth during the second quarter of 2011.  The independent landline telephone company that last week acquired Rochester-based PAETEC Corporation managed to win new revenue from its business services unit and equipment sales, even as it continues to lose core landline customers, who are disconnecting service in favor of cell phones or cable telephone products.

It added up to a measurable, but meager growth of 0.1 percent for the company year-over-year during the second quarter.

Like many traditional wireline phone companies, Windstream is betting the farm in their largely rural and suburban service areas on selling broadband and maintaining the allegiance of their business customers, challenged in larger cities by increasingly aggressive “Business Class” products from competing cable companies.

Windstream executives responded to questions from Wall Street bankers during their second quarter conference call held last Friday.

While several investment firms were happy to see Windstream manage some revenue growth, several zeroed in on the company’s increased capital expenditures.  Windstream reports the company will continue major investments in fiber and broadband services, but not primarily for their residential retail customers.  Instead, Windstream hopes to capitalize on the “high margin” business of selling fiber-based cell tower services, primarily to support forthcoming 4G deployments.

Windstream officials faced some hesitancy from Wall Street about the company’s spending during Friday’s conference call, particularly from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

Anthony Thomas, chief financial officer for Windstream, defended the investments.

“The most important part of fiber-to-the-tower projects are the initial investments. Those are very high-margin businesses,” Thomas said. “But you have be comfortable with the upfront capital and be patient at recognizing those are 6-to 12-month investment time horizons. But once you start bringing those revenues in, the actual cost of operating a tower is low.”

Wall Street also expressed concerns about consumer broadband traffic growth, but did not broach the subject of usage control measures like usage caps or metered billing.  Windstream acknowledged the growth, primarily from online video, and said it had well-equipped data centers to handle the traffic.

Windsteam’s Consumer Strategy: Bundle Customers & Keep Them Away from Cable TV

It's all about the bundle.

Online video may be an asset for Windstream, which is facing increasing challenges retaining landline customers and up-selling them other products like broadband.  That competition comes primarily from cable companies, who are targeting Windstream customers with invitations to cut their landline service and bring all of their telecommunications business to cable.

Traditional phone companies have a major weakness in their product bundle: video.  Independent phone companies, in particular, are usually reliant on satellite TV partners to support the television component of a traditional “triple play” bundle.  Windstream’s network is capable of telephone and slow speed broadband in most areas, but the company’s involvement in video is largely left to a third party satellite-TV provider.

Customers who do not want satellite TV service may be easily attracted to a local cable provider.  But as an increasing amount of video viewing is moving online, Windstream may find customers increasingly tolerant of doing their viewing online, reducing the importance of a video package.

Windstream’s strategies to keep customers:

• Sell customers on product bundles, now enhanced with online security/antivirus options and on-call technical support for computer-related technical issues;
• Pitch Windstream’s Lifetime Price Guarantee, which locks in a single price for basic services, good as long as you remain a customer;
• Challenge cable competitors head-on with its “Quitter Campaign,” which tries to convince cable customers to “quit cable” in favor of Windstream;
• Offer faster broadband speeds in limited areas to satisfy premium customer demand.

Windstream Tries to Convince Customers the Broadband Speeds It Doesn’t Offer Do Not Matter for Most

Windstream’s efforts at winning over new broadband customers have been waning as of late.  One of the primary issues Windstream faces is the cable industry’s effective portrayal of DSL as “yesterday’s” technology, incapable of delivering the broadband speeds consumers crave.

Instead of investing in improved broadband speeds for everyone, Windstream spends its time and efforts trying to convince most customers they don’t need the faster speeds being pitched by most cable companies in the first place.

Windstream tries to convince customers they can make do with less speed (as low as 1.5Mbps), and there is no difference in speed between different providers — both questionable assertions.  (4 minutes)

The COO says 3Mbps is Windstream's biggest seller -- their website says something else.

Windstream chief operating officer Brent Whittington says his customers “don’t want to pay for incremental speed,” but is expanding their capacity to offer somewhat faster speeds.

“We still see that long term as [an increased revenue opportunity] because we know the demand is going to be there,” Whittington told investors.  “As we’ve rolled it out currently, it’s largely to — from a marketing benefits standpoint to talk about our competitiveness relative to our cable competition, but [consumers] are largely buying at 3Mbps.”

Either Whittington is mistaken, or Windstream’s website is, because it promotes the company’s 6Mbps $44.99 option as its “top seller.”  Many of Windstream’s cable competitors charge less for almost twice the speed, which may be another reason why Windstream’s broadband signup numbers are lagging behind.

Finding More Revenue: Universal Service Fund Reform & Business Services

Among the most important components of Windstream’s strategy for future growth are reform efforts underway in Washington to overhaul the Universal Service Fund.  Rural, independent phone companies like Windstream have reaped the rewards of this subsidy for years in its rural service areas.  But now Washington wants to transform the program away from simply underwriting rural landline phone service and redirect revenues to enhancing broadband access in areas too unprofitable to service today.

Windstream sees the reform as a positive development.

“It focuses USF on high-cost areas,” said Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner. “If you were a customer in a rural area of Windstream versus a customer in a rural area of a small carrier, your subsidy would much be higher, and we would get very little USF for that going forward. In this proposal, USF is really targeted towards those high-cost areas, so we kind of deal with this issue that we refer to as the rural-rural divide.”

Gardner says USF reform will end disparity of access.

“All rural customers are going to have the opportunity to get broadband out to them under this plan,” he said. The more customers paying monthly service fees, the higher the company’s revenues, assuming nothing else changes.

While redirected subsidies may help rural broadband customers, Windstream’s capital investments in expanding their network are going primarily to benefit their business clients, not consumers.

“On the small business side, our service there is very superior to our cable competitors,” said Windstream’s chief financial officer Anthony Thomas. “We’ve made investments in our network to offer VDSL and higher-speed data services. That’s going to be directed predominately toward those small business customers.”

Whittington added most of the company’s efforts at deploying VDSL technology are focused on the company’s small business segment to bring faster speeds to commercial customers.  For consumers, Windstream’s efforts are targeted primarily at keeping up with usage demands.

“Like a lot of folks in the industry, we’ve definitely seen increases in network traffic really due to video consumption,” Whittington said. “No question Netflix and other related type services are driving some of that demand. We continue to invest in broadband transport like we have in years past. And the good thing with a lot of things we’ve been doing from just a network perspective like rolling out as I mentioned before, VDSL technology in our larger markets. That’s really all about fiber deployment, which helps solve some of those transport issues. So we feel like we’ve been in good shape there, but it’s certainly something we’ve been very focused on operationally so our broadband customers don’t see a degradation in the quality of their experience.”

In the fall of 2009, South Carolina’s Budget and Control Board approved a fire-sale deal that leased out 95 percent of the state’s public wireless broadband spectrum to two private companies in a 30-year contract valued at $143 million, with the promise South Carolina would enjoy better broadband as a result.

Two years later, South Carolina’s broadband standing has been called “a Corridor of Shame” according to one provider that is trying to expand service while Clearwire and DigitalBridge — the contract winners, sit on their respective hands.

Both companies secured access to the statewide Educational Broadband Service spectrum they get to control with near-exclusivity for less than $5 million annually — around $1 a year for every South Carolinian that could eventually be served with improved broadband.  But nobody is getting service from either provider, indefinitely.

Columbia’s Free-Times notes neither company has concrete plans to bring broadband to anyone in South Carolina.  Clearwire, now in financial trouble, provides no service in the state and DigitalBridge refused to comment for the newspaper’s story.  Free-Times reporter Corey Hutchins could not find anyone able to provide any definitive information about either company’s short or long-term plans to hold up their end of the bargain.

Khush Tata, chief information officer for the S.C. Technical College System suspects one might not even exist.  So long as these two companies maintain a lock on the spectrum, nobody else can deliver the wireless service either.

“I haven’t seen any big cohesive strategy since [the leasing] at all,” Tata told the newspaper. “I think that it’s still based on market and business viability for each provider so they’re sort of on their own. Each provider, they invest based on their return on investment, which is good for their business, but as a state there isn’t any overall planning or approach — and I think the leasing of spectrum provided the largest overall strategy opportunity, which is a pity that it hasn’t panned out yet.”

Don’t tell that to industry-connected Connected Nation, whose South Carolina chapter claims the state is doing better than most providing broadband service.  The group has published maps, based entirely on data provided by the state’s phone and cable companies, that suggest most residents not only get the service, but have a choice in providers.

“That’s just plain bull,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jeff Lodge, who lives outside of Columbia.  Not only does the local cable company pass him by, but there is no DSL either.  He relies on an unlimited wireless data plan from AT&T and does most of his web browsing during breaks at work.

No Plans

“I live in a community of 22,000 people and only those along the main streets in this community have access to broadband,” he says. “The cable company doesn’t go far off the beaten path, and the here-and-there DSL some get is dreadful.”

Even Connect South Carolina acknowledges broadband speeds in the state are often woefully behind others in the region.  Many well-populated census tracts have no wired broadband at all.

With the pervasive lack of broadband, incumbent providers have been heavily lobbying the state to keep others off their spartan turf — pushing for the same type of legislation effectively banning community broadband networks that North Carolina passed earlier this year.

“It’s Time Warner Cable and AT&T… again, that are behind most of this effort, and those two companies treat South Carolina like a forgotten bastard child now,” Lodge says. “Can you imagine the arrogance of big cable and phone companies to keep competition away even when they, themselves, won’t compete?”

No Comment

One company trying to make a difference: GlobalCo and their partner On-Time-Communications.  A review of the under-developed website of the latter suggests neither entity is well-positioned or backed to deliver broadband without significant financial assistance.  But at least they recognize the problem.

“In South Carolina there’s 10 counties that made [the FCC’s report on broadband unavailability] and the majority of them come out of what’s commonly referred to as the ‘Corridor of Shame’,” Ronnie Wyche, GlobalCo’s vice president of sales told Free-Times.

None of this comes as a surprise to Brett Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, who opposed the spectrum sell-off.

“The bargain basement lease of the nation’s only statewide broadband system was a theft from, and insult to, the taxpayers who built and own the system,” Bursey told the paper. “The system is not being developed by the companies who won the lease and the Legislature is ideologically opposed to public ownership.”

The Federal Communications Commission today released MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA, the first nationwide performance study of residential wireline broadband service in the United States.  The study examined service offerings from 13 of the largest wireline broadband providers using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteers during March 2011.

Among the key findings:

Providers are being more honest about their advertised speeds: Actual speeds are moving closer to the speeds promised by those providers.  Back in 2009, the FCC found a greater disparity between advertised and delivered speeds.  But the Commission also found that certain providers are more likely to deliver than others, and certain broadband technologies are simply more reliable and consistent.

Fiber-to-the-Home service was the runaway winner, consistently delivering even better speeds than advertised (114%).  Cable broadband delivered 93% of advertised speeds, while DSL only managed to deliver 82 percent of what providers promise.  Fiber broadband speeds are consistent, with just a 0.4 percent decline in speeds during peak usage periods.

Cable companies are still overselling their networks.  The FCC found during peak usage periods (7-11pm), 7.3 percent of cable-based services suffered from speed decreases — generally a sign a provider has piled too many customers onto an overburdened network.  One clear clue of overselling: the FCC found upload speeds largely unaffected.

DSL has capacity and speed issues.  DSL also experienced speed drops, with 5.5 percent of customers witnessing significant speed deterioration, which could come from an overshared D-SLAM, where multiple DSL customers connect with equipment that relays their traffic back to the central office, or from insufficient connectivity to the Internet backbone.

Some providers are much better than others.  The FCC found some remarkable variability in the performance of different ISPs.  Let’s break several down:

• Verizon’s FiOS was the clear winner among the major providers tested, winning top performance marks across the board.  Few providers came close;
• Comcast had the most consistently reliable speeds among cable broadband providers.  Cox beat them at times, but only during hours when few customers were using their network;
• AT&T U-verse was competitive with most cable broadband packages, but is already being outclassed by cable companies offering DOCSIS 3-based premium speed tiers;
• Cablevision has a seriously oversold broadband network.  Their results were disastrous, scoring the worst of all providers for consistent service during peak usage periods.  Their performance was simply unacceptable, incapable of delivering barely more than half of promised speeds during the 10pm-12am window.
• It was strictly middle-of-the-road performance for Time Warner Cable, Insight, and CenturyLink.  They aren’t bad, but they could be better.
• Mediacom continued its tradition of being a mediocre cable provider, delivering consistently below-average results for their customers during peak usage periods.  They are not performing necessary upgrades to keep up with user demand.
• Most major DSL providers — AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest — promise little and deliver as much.  Their ho-hum advertised speeds combined with unimpressive scores for time of day performance variability should make all of these the consumers’ last choice for broadband service if other options are available.

Some conclusions the FCC wants consumers to ponder:

1. For basic web-browsing and Voice-Over-IP, any provider should be adequate.  Shop on price. Consumers should not overspend for faster tiers of service they will simply not benefit from all that much.  Web pages loaded at similar speeds regardless of the speed tier chosen.
2. Video streaming benefits from consistent speeds and network reliability.  Fiber and cable broadband usually deliver faster speeds that can ensure reliable high quality video streaming.  DSL may or may not be able to keep up with our HD video future.
3. Temporary speed-boost technology provided by some cable operators is a useful gimmick.  It can help render web pages and complete small file downloads faster.  It can’t beat fiber’s consistently faster speeds, but can deliver a noticeable improvement over DSL.

More than 78,000 consumers volunteered to participate in the study and a total of approximately 9,000 consumers were selected as potential participants and were supplied with specially configured routers. The data in the report is based on a statistically selected subset of those consumers—approximately 6,800 individuals—and the measurements taken in their homes during March 2011. The participants in the volunteer consumer panel were recruited with the goal of covering ISPs within the U.S. across all broadband technologies, although only results from three major technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—are reflected in the report.

Phillip "Try the Gouda" Dampier

Welcome to the Broadband Usage Whine & Cheese Festival

Midcontinent Communications earlier this month announced a big boost in broadband speeds for more than 250,000 customers in the Dakotas and Minnesota, bringing up to 100/15Mbps service to customers who wanted or needed that speed.

MidcoNet Xstream Wideband, made possible with a DOCSIS 3 upgrade, delivers 1/1Mbps ($30.95), 30/5Mbps ($44.95), 50/10Mbps ($64.95), or 100/15Mbps ($104.95) service.  Those are mighty fast speeds for an upper midwestern cable company, especially in states where 1-3Mbps DSL is much more common.

The cable provider was excited to introduce the speed upgrades earlier this month, telling customers:

At up to 100 Mbps, MidcoNet Xstream^® Wideband is fast. But today’s online experience is about more than speed. It’s about the power and capacity to run every streaming, blogging, downloading, surfing, gaming, chatting, working, playing, connected device in the house. All at the same time. MidcoNet Xstream Wideband delivers…it’s everyone in your entire family online at once, doing the most intense online activities, no problem.

But now there is a problem.  Customers spending upwards of $105 a month for the fastest Internet speeds are actually using them to leverage the Internet’s most bandwidth-intensive services, and evidently Midco isn’t too happy about that.  Todd Spangler, a columnist for cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News, was given a usage chart by Midco, and used it to lecture readers about the need for usage caps: “One thing is clear: Broadband service providers will all need to do something to contain the rapidly rising flood of Internet data.”  The implication left with readers is that limiting broadband usage is the only way to stem the tide.

Midco's not-so-useful chart looks mighty scary, showing usage growth on their 100Gbps backbone network, but leaves an enormous amount of information out of the equation. (Source: Midcontinent Communications via Multichannel News)

Spangler quotes Midco’s vice president of technology Jon Pederson: “Like most network providers we have evaluated this possibility, but have no immediate plans to implement bandwidth-usage caps,” he said.

So Midco is more than happy to pocket up to $105 a month from their customers, so long as they don’t actually use the broadband service they are paying top dollar to receive.  It’s an ironic case of a provider desiring to improve service, but then getting upset when customers actually use it.

We say ironic because, from all outward appearances, Midco is well-aware of the transformational usage of broadband service in the United States these days:

If you have ever once said “my Internet is too slow,” then you need MidcoNet Xstream Wideband. With it, you can do all the cool things you’ve heard people are doing online. Explore all the great stuff your online world has to offer. Play the most intense games. Try things you could never do before, from entertainment to finance, video chat or video streaming. Like we said, MidcoNet Xstream Wideband is all about speed, capacity, choice and control.

What this means for you is that you’ll be able to do things like:

• Download and start enjoying entire HD movies in seconds, not minutes.
• Stream video and music without a hitch while you simultaneously perform other intense online tasks.
• Choose from three different pipelines, from 3.0 to 1.0, for the capacity and price your family needs.
• Monitor your bandwidth use to determine if you need more capacity or can do what you want with less.
• Upload files or signals, such as webcam footage, faster than ever before possible for a better online experience.
• Watch ESPN3.com. Your Favorite Sports. Live. Online.

Just don’t do any of these things too much.  Indeed, when providers start toying with usage caps, it’s clear they want you to use your service the same way you did in 2004 — reading your e-mail and browsing web pages.  Real Audio stream anyone?

Let’s ponder the facts Mr. Spangler didn’t entertain in his piece.

Midco upgraded their network to DOCSIS 3 technology to deliver faster speeds and provide more broadband capacity to customers who are using the Internet much differently than a decade ago, when cable modems first became common.  Some providers and their trade press friends seem to think it’s perfectly reasonable to collect the proceeds of premium-priced broadband service while claiming shock over the reality that someone prepared to spend $100 a month for that product will use it far more than the average user.

Part of the price premium charged for faster service is supposed to cover whatever broadband usage growth comes as a result.  That’s why Comcast’s 250GB usage cap never made any sense.  Why would someone pay the company a premium for 50Mbps service that has precisely the same limit someone paying for standard service has to endure?

Cringely

Midcontinent Communications is a private company so we do not have access to their financial reports, but among larger providers the trend is quite clear: revenues from premium speed accounts are being pocketed without a corresponding increase in investment to upgrade their networks to meet demand.  Inevitably that brings the kind of complaining about usage that leads to calls for usage caps or speed throttles to control the growth.

We’re uncertain if Midco is making the case for usage caps, or simply Mr. Spangler.  We’ll explain that in a moment.  But if we are to fully grasp Midco’s broadband challenges, we need much more than a single usage growth chart.  A “shocking” usage graph is no more impressive than those showing an exponential increase in hard drive capacity over the same period.  The only difference is consumers are paying about the same for hard drives today and getting a lot more capacity, while broadband users are paying much more and now being told to use less.  Here is what we’d like to see to assemble a true picture of Midco’s usage “dilemma:”

1. How much average revenue per customer does Midco collect from broadband customers.  Traditional evidence shows ARPU for broadband is growing at a rapid rate, as consumers upgrade to faster speeds at higher prices.  We’d like to compare numbers over the last five years;
2. How much does Midco spend on capital improvements to their network, and plot that spending over the last 10 years to see whether it has increased, remained level, or decreased.  The latter is most common for cable operators, as the percentage spent in relation to revenue is dropping fast;
3. How many subscribers have adopted broadband service over the period their usage chart illustrates, and at what rate of growth?
4. What does Midco pay for upstream connectivity and has that amount gone up, down, or stayed the same over the past few years.  Traditionally, those costs are plummeting.
5. If the expenses for broadband upgrades and connectivity have decreased, what has Midco done with the savings and why are they not prepared to spend that money now to improve their network?

While Midco expresses concern about the costs of connectivity and ponders usage caps, there was plenty of money available for their recent purchase of U.S. Cable, a state-of-the-art fiber system serving 33,000 customers — a significant addition for a cable company that serves around 250,000 customers.

A journey through Midco’s own website seems to tell a very different story from the one Mr. Spangler is promoting.  The aforementioned Mr. Pederson is all over the website with YouTube videos which cast doubt on all of Spangler’s arguments.  Midco has plentiful bandwidth, Mr. Pederson declares — both to neighborhoods and to the Internet backbone.  Their network upgrades were designed precisely to handle today’s realistic use of the Internet.  They are marketing content add-ons that include bandwidth-heavy multimedia.  Why would a provider sell customers on using their broadband service for high-bandwidth applications and then ponder limiting their use?  Mr. Pederson seems well-aware of the implications of an increasingly connected world, and higher usage comes along with that.

That’s why we’d prefer to attack Mr. Spangler’s “evidence” used to favor usage caps instead of simply vilifying Midco — they have so far rejected usage limits for their customers, and should be applauded for that.

Robert X. Cringely approached Midco’s usage chart from a different angle on his blog, delivering facts our readers already know: Americans are overpaying for their broadband service, and the threat of usage caps simply disguises a big fat rate hike.  He found Midco’s chart the same place we did — on Multichannel News’ website.  He dismisses its relevance in the usage cap debate.  Cringley’s article explores the costs of broadband connectivity, which we have repeatedly documented are dropping, and he has several charts to illustrate that fact.

You’ll notice for example that backbone costs in Tokyo, where broadband connections typically run at 100 megabits-per-second, are about four times higher than they are in New York or London. Yet broadband connections in Tokyo cost halfwhat they do in New York, and that’s for a connection at least four times a fast!

So Softbank BB in Tokyo pays four times as much per megabit for backbone capacity and offers four times the speed for half the price of Verizon in New York. Yet Softbank BB is profitable.

No matter what your ISP says, their backbone costs are inconsequential and to argue otherwise is probably a lie.

Cue up Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, who said precisely as much Thursday morning when he admitted bandwidth costs are not terribly relevant to broadband pricing.

We knew that, but it’s great to hear him say it.

Cringely’s excellent analysis puts a price tag on what ISP’s want to cap for their own benefit — their maximum cost to deliver the service:

That 250 gigabytes-per-month works out to about one megabit-per-second, which costs $8 in New York. So your American ISP, who has been spending $0.40 per month to buy the bandwidth they’ve been selling to you for $30, wants to cap their maximum backbone cost per-subscriber at $8.

[…] IP Transit costs will continue to drop. That $8 price will most likely continue to fall at the historical annual rate of 22 percent. So what’s presented as an ISP insurance policy is really a guaranteed profit increase of 22 percent that will be compounded over time because consumption will continue to rise and customers will be for the first time charged for that increased consumption.

This isn’t about capping ISP losses, but are about increasing ISP profits. The caps are a built-in revenue bump that will kick-in 2-3 years from now, circumventing any existing regulatory structure for setting rates. The regulators just haven’t realized it yet. By the time they do it may be too late.

Unfortunately, even if they knew, we have legislators in Washington who are well-paid in campaign money to look the other way unless consumers launch a revolution against duopoly broadband pricing.

Cringely believes usage caps will be the form of your provider’s next rate increase for broadband, but he need not wait that long.  As the aforementioned CEO of Time Warner Cable has already admitted, the pricing power of broadband is such that the cable and phone companies are already increasing rates — repeatedly — for a service many still want to cap.  Why?  Because they can.

Consumers who have educated themselves with actual facts instead of succumbing to ISP “re-education” efforts designed to sell usage limits under the guise of “fairness” are well-equipped to answer Mr. Spangler’s question about whether bandwidth caps are necessary.

The answer was no, is no, and will always be no.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Midco D3 Upgrade Promo 7-11.flv[/flv]

Jon Pederson’s comments on Midcontinent’s own website promoting its new faster broadband speeds can’t be missed.  He counts the number of devices in his own home that connect to the Internet, explains how our use of the Internet has been transformed in the past several years, and declares Midco well-prepared to deliver customers the capacity they need.  Perhaps Mr. Spangler used the wrong company to promote his desire for Internet usage caps.  Pederson handily, albeit indirectly, obliterates Spangler’s own talking points, which makes us wonder why this company even pondered Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps in the first place.  (10 minutes)

Frontier Communications claims its expansive broadband deployment efforts in West Virginia will take the Mountain State from the bottom of the broadband barrel to the very top within a few years.

Dana Waldo, Frontier’s senior vice president and general manager, said the company has completely turned around landline and broadband service in West Virginia just over a year after Verizon Communications left the state.

In a wide-ranging radio interview with MetroNews, Waldo claims complaints are way down while DSL broadband deployment is way up.  In just about a year, Frontier has expanded broadband to 76 percent of its West Virginia service area, adding 85,000 additional homes and businesses that previously had no access to wired broadband.

“We made a commitment to spend about $310 million, from the time of the transaction through 2013, to improve the network, to expand broadband across the state and for other capital improvements,” Waldo told MetroNews Talkline.

Frontier Communications’ Dana Waldo talks with MetroNews Talkline about phone and broadband service in West Virginia. July 19, 2011. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Currently, West Virginia ranks 47th in the United States for broadband access, mostly because large sections of the rural, mountainous state simply don’t have access to any provider.  What access most do have, outside of major cities like Charleston, Huntington, Wheeling, and Parkersburg comes from telephone company-provided DSL.  Verizon used to be the dominant provider in West Virginia, with Frontier providing service in limited areas.  But after Verizon sold its operations in the state to Frontier, the independent telephone company is now the only telecommunications provider for many rural communities.  For the majority of customers outside of the largest cities, Frontier markets DSL at speeds up to 3Mbps, hardly cutting-edge.

Frontier’s backbone network is deemed the worst in the nation for a wired provider, according to statistics collected and analyzed by Netflix.

“When comparing broadband in states like New York or New Jersey with West Virginia… there is no comparison,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Steve who lives in Hempstead, N.Y., but owns a cabin outside of Beckley, W.V.  “You can get Cablevision’s cable broadband at rocket ship speeds or Verizon FiOS fiber-to-the-home, which is even faster, in New York.  For my neighbors and me in West Virginia, there is one choice – Frontier Communications’ DSL, which can manage 800kbps on a good day.”

“I almost drove off the road laughing as I listened to the sheer nonsense of Mr. Waldo’s empty promises,” Steve shares. “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.  How he expects to make West Virginia a top-5 broadband state with their obsolete DSL is a question the gushing host never bothered to ask.”

Steve doesn’t think too many of his Mountain State neighbors are as excited as Mr. Waldo by Frontier.

“God help you if your line goes out, because they can take days to get around to fix it,” Steve says. “Waldo tries to sell you his possum pie with claims the company takes longer to effect repairs so they are ‘done right the first time,’ which is a real hoot considering all of the repeated outages customers experience.”

Steve doesn’t lay the blame entirely at Frontier, however, claiming Verizon fled the state after mangling their outdated landline network and keeping it running with electrical tape.

“Frontier bought into a real mess, and I’m sure they will eventually fix a lot of the problems Verizon didn’t ever care to fix, but that doesn’t make West Virginia a broadband nirvana — certainly not with Frontier’s DSL.”