We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

Lawrence, Kansas is a unique place to live.  Its local newspaper, the Lawrence Journal-World, was one of the first in America to begin an online edition in 1995.  Its owner, The World Company, just so happens to also own the independent cable system serving the community, which also provides broadband and phone service to the city’s 90,000 residents.  Its biggest competitor is AT&T, which has been upgrading parts of Lawrence with its U-verse system to stay competitive.

Sunflower Broadband, which provides a “triple play” package of Internet, cable TV and telephone service, has remained controversial among service providers because it instituted an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage caps and overlimit fees.  The company has been used by the American Cable Association, a trade and lobbying group serving independent cable operators, as a poster child for effective rationed broadband schemes that reduce demand and increase broadband profits.

Lawrence, Kansas

Customers generally have loathed usage caps, particularly when they were stuck choosing between Sunflower’s faster, usage capped broadband service or a low speed DSL product from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! receives more complaints about Sunflower Broadband than any other provider, except Time Warner Cable during its own Internet Overcharging experiment in April 2009.  Lawrence residents appreciate the relatively fast speeds Sunflower can provide, but complain they can’t get much use from a service that limits customers to a set allowance and then bills them up to $2 per gigabyte in overlimit penalties when they exceed them.

Last fall, things started to change in Lawrence as AT&T began offering it’s U-verse service in parts of the community.  We began receiving e-mail from Lawrence residents pondering a new service plan Sunflower Broadband introduced — Palladium, an unmetered broadband option priced at $49.95 per month.  It sounded like a good deal, perhaps introduced to protect them from U-verse customer poaching, until they noticed Sunflower was  selling the plan without a fixed downstream or upstream speed.  In fact, no speed was mentioned at all.  Indeed, Sunflower’s Palladium is nothing new to those living abroad under various cap ‘n tier broadband regimes.  It’s comparable to New Zealand Telecom’s Big Time plan, where customers need not fear overlimit fees and penalties, but have to live with a “traffic management” scheme that gives priority to customers on other plans living under a usage cap.

In other words, Palladium customers get last priority on Sunflower’s network.  If the network is not congested, these customers should enjoy relatively fast connections.  But during primetime, expect speeds to drop… and dramatically so according to customers writing us.

Sunflower Broadband's Internet pricing - add $10 if you want standalone service

That customers debate just how slow those speeds can get testify to the nature of cable’s “shared infrastructure.”  Groups of subscribers are pooled together in geographic areas and share a set amount of bandwidth.  As usage increases, so does congestion.  Responsible operators measure that congestion and can split particularly busy neighborhoods into two or more distinct “pools,” each sharing their own bandwidth.  Based on the variable reports we’ve read, it’s apparent Palladium works better in some parts of Lawrence, namely those with fewer broadband enthusiasts, than others.

Network management is a major concern of Net Neutrality proponents.  It allows an operator to artificially impede traffic based on its type, who generates it, and potentially how much a customer has paid to prevent that throttling of their speed.  In the case of Palladium, network management is used to give usage-capped customers first priority for available bandwidth, and push Palladium customers further back in line.

Judging the quality of such a service is a classic case of “your results may vary,” because it is entirely dependent on when one uses the Internet, how many others are logged in and trying to use it at the same time, how many customers are saturating their connections with high traffic downloading and uploading, and how many people are sharing your “pool” of bandwidth.  Oh, and the quality of your cable line can create a major impact as well.

Sunflower Broadband representatives claim Palladium is “optimized for video” and should provide at least 2Mbps service during peak usage and up to 21Mbps service at non-peak times.  That’s a tremendous gap, and we wanted to find out whether most customers were getting closer to the low end or the high end of that range.

Back in October, we wrote a request in the comments section of the Journal-World asking customers to e-mail us with answers to several questions about their experiences with Sunflower Broadband:

• 1) whether you ever exceed the cap.
• 2) do you think there should be one.
• 3) would you prefer faster speed with a cap or slightly slower speed with no cap.
• 4) your experience with the new unlimited option.
• 5) whether you would contemplate switching to AT&T U-verse if it meant escaping a usage cap, even if it had slower speeds.
• 6) Would you pay more for faster speed and no cap?
• 7) your overall feelings about Sunflower Broadband.

We heard from just over two dozen readers sharing their thoughts about the company and its service.  The response was mixed.

Generally speaking, customers hate the usage caps Sunflower Broadband maintains on most of their broadband tiers.  All thought it was unfair and unreasonable to limit broadband service under Sunflower’s Bronze tier to just 2GB per month and their Silver tier to just 25GB per month.  Most customers who wrote subscribed to the Silver tier of service with 7Mbps/256kbps speeds at $29.95 per month.  They also paid a $5 monthly modem rental charge.  Those who wrote who fit the “broadband enthusiast” category were internally debating whether the Gold plan, with its assured 50Mbps/1Mbps speeds for $59.95 per month was a better option, even with a 120GB allowance, or whether they should opt for Palladium’s $49.95 option to escape the usage cap.

Among enthusiasts, some felt Sunflower responded to customer demands by offering an unlimited plan in the first place, and thought it was an acceptable trade-off to obtain lower speeds at peak usage times for a correspondingly lower price, and no cap, as long as speeds were reasonable at all times.  Others were offended they had to make the choice in the first place.

“If I lived anywhere else, I wouldn’t have to choose between a throttled service or one that asks for $60 a month for 120GB of service,” writes Steve from Lawrence.  “AT&T DSL for me is 1.5Mbps service because I live close to the edge of the distance limit from AT&T’s exchange.”

But Justin, also from Lawrence, has a more favorable view. “I hate their usage cap with a passion, but when you look at what small cable companies usually offer their customers, it’s slow speed service at terribly high prices,” he writes. “At least Sunflower did DOCSIS 3 upgrades and can offer big city speeds here.  How long will that take other small independent providers?”

Troy adds, “at least they gave us one choice for unlimited service.  Time Warner Cable and Comcast sure didn’t.”

About half of those who wrote did exceed their usage cap by underestimating the amount of usage in their respective households.  Most of those who did were on the Silver plan.

Dave writes, “I knew right off the bat the Bronze tier was ridiculous for anyone to choose, and our family has three teenagers so we knew that was not an option.  We tried the Silver plan when we switched from AT&T DSL service and blew the lid off that 25GB cap probably within two weeks and got a crazy bill.  At least Sunflower forgave the overlimit fees for the first month, but they could afford to because we upgraded to Palladium, paying them $20 more per month.”

One customer's dismal Palladium speed test result from last October, likely the result of a signal problem

Angela, who shares an apartment with two other roommates had their share of fights over who used up all the broadband allowance.

“We have a wireless network and everyone splits the bill, but when we ran up almost 200GB of usage, we freaked.  Nobody would admit to using that much Internet.  Thanks to my boyfriend, we discovered our wireless router was wide open and one of our lovely neighbors probably hopped on to enjoy,” Angela writes.

Sunflower also forgave their overlimit bill for the first month, but they decided to take advantage of an introductory offer from AT&T and switched to U-verse and are much happier.

“At least with AT&T, we know what our broadband bill is going to be and we don’t have fights or worries about getting a huge bill from Sunflower,” she adds.

Among those answering our question about reduced speed in return for no cap, the consensus view was “we would need to know what speed they are providing.”  Broadband speed was important to most who wrote.  While many may not be able to discern a difference between 10 and 20Mbps service for most online activities, obtaining 2Mbps service when expecting closer to 20Mbps is readily apparent, and that was the biggest problem with Palladium users unimpressed with its performance.

“Palladium is god awful, and close to unusable on the weekends and during the early evening when everyone is online,” writes Kelly, also in Lawrence.  “We have college students all over the neighborhood and these people can’t be unconnected for a minute, so I’m not surprised Palladium crawls when everyone is online.”

Kyle, a regular Stop the Cap! reader writes the whole concept of Palladium leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

“Palladium is the equivalent of going into a restaurant and eating leftovers — whatever speed is leftover, it’s yours.  Sometimes it might be a whole meal, other times scraps!  It’s an example of crappy customer service coming from a provider which doesn’t have much competition (although maybe that will change with U-verse),” he says.

Kyle is on the Gold plan, but remains unimpressed with Sunflower:

“Is there another DOCSIS 3 system in the country that limits upload speed to 1Mbps or has a bandwidth cap this low (120 GB) with DOCSIS 3?”

Stop the Cap! also obtained access to the company’s subscriber-only forums and discovered considerable discontent with Sunflower’s broadband service.

“I recently switched over to Palladium to avoid the new Gold price gouging. I bought the new modem set it up and much to my surprise my speeds were HORRIFIC! Consistently 4.5Mbps service over the course of a week at various times. Upload speeds were so terrible it took 15 minutes to send emails with one minute movies,” writes one user.  “So, for $20 more a month Palladium offers much slower speeds BUT unlimited bandwidth (which according to Sunflower’s own statistics almost no one exceeds their limits anyway.)  What a rip-off. All I want is my old Gold back, same speed and price. I am absolutely disgusted with Sunflower. Calling Palladium “variable speed” is a lie. You are throttling customers – period.”

“So I have Palladium and the speeds are decent, usually around 10Mbps down (we won’t talk about up speeds.) But every time I run a torrent my speeds go down to about 500kbps. The second I turn off my torrent client and run a speed test again its right back up to 10. Has anyone else been having similar issues? It seems like Sunflower throttles my entire connection when they detect a torrent,” writes another.

One Lawrence resident claims he was blacklisted by Sunflower Broadband after criticizing them.

“Their blacklisting of me served as a warning to others after I spoke out nationally.  They are quite pissed and I’m not allowed to go to any event sponsored by them.  I even got removed from the local Twitter festival,” a person who I have chosen to keep anonymous writes. “The nutshell is that the bandwidth from DOCSIS 3.0 is extremely throttled for Palladium users. If they have done heavy downloading the throttle drops speed to about 2Mbps.”

For Lawrence residents who have decided they don’t like the choices Sunflower provides for broadband service, the good news is that AT&T is upgrading their network in the city to provide U-verse service, and many who wrote us have switched just because AT&T does not engage in Internet Overcharging caps and limits in Lawrence.

There is even a blog devoted to comparing Sunflower Broadband service with AT&T U-verse.  The Lawrence Broadband Observer has been reporting on the dueling providers since August.  His verdict: AT&T U-verse wins for broadband for its more stable speeds, and no Internet Overcharging schemes, even if it costs more:

We decided to go with U-verse for our Internet service, canceling our Sunflower Broadband Internet, which we had used for over 13 years. U-verse’ top line internet costs $15 more per month then Sunflower’s; we decided that the advantages of U-Verse for Internet were enough to make this extra $15 per month a reasonable value.

Furthermore, the speed of U-verse has been remarkably consistent, always ranging between 16 and 17Mbps down and about 1.4Mbps up, no matter the time of day.

While Sunflower’s service is very fast at certain times of day, it frequently slows down during evenings or other times of heavy network use, sometimes to less then half of the speed we were paying for.

The other primary reason we went with U-verse was because U-verse does not have bandwidth overage fees or any kind of bandwidth limits. Although we have been careful with Sunflower and managed to avoid any bandwidth overage charges, having “the meter running” all the time was annoying, and we worried that we could always be surprised with an unexpected charge. With U-verse we do not have this worry.  One could almost think of the $15 extra for U-verse as an insurance policy…it buys peace of mind not having to worry about bandwidth overages.

Telecom New Zealand

Telecom New Zealand, Ltd. (TNZ) has been fined $352,600US for claiming one of their broadband plans offered “unlimited data usage and all the internet you can handle,” and then promptly throttled speeds to just above dial-up for some users.  The company pled guilty in Auckland District Court to 17 charges brought against it for misleading customers. Under the New Zealand Fair Trading Act, companies must be honest with customers about what their products and services deliver, and may not engage in “gotcha” fine print that radically departs from the marketing campaign for the service on offer.

The case stems from claims made in 2006 that TNZ’s Go Large broadband plan included “unlimited data usage and all the internet you can handle.”  Customers who flocked to the Go Large plan soon discovered “unlimited” meant “limited.”  Customer complaints rolled in when subscribers discovered the plan’s broadband speed was heavily throttled by “traffic management” which dramatically reduced speeds for file sharing networks and other downloading during peak usage times.  Many complained Go Large’s throttled speeds were slower than those on their usage-capped former Telecom plans.

Customers wading through the fine print finally discovered the reason for the terrible speeds.  The company disclosed it used “traffic management” technology to artificially lower speeds during peak usage times and for certain applications that used a lot of bandwidth.  In December 2006 the company quietly expanded that fine-print to broaden the use of traffic management on certain Internet applications to lower speeds at all times of the day and night for every customer.  This for a plan that promised unconstrained speeds.

New Zealand’s Commerce Commission was not impressed and accused the company of not disclosing relevant information to customers, and failed to make sure their service lived up to its marketing hype.

Telecom stopped offering the now-infamous Go Large plan in February 2007, and rebranded it Big Time.  The latter plan continues to offer “unlimited usage” but more clearly discloses the traffic management policies that limit customer speeds.

The company has already paid $8.4 million in refunds to nearly 97,000 customers, and has agreed to an additional $44,000 in reparations to nearly 2,000 additional customers.

Company officials apologized for the misleading advertising, stating “we failed to adequately disclose various qualifications for our plans and we apologize for this.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/nzbroadband.flv[/flv]

Telecom New Zealand’s Big Time plan ($43US per month – add $7US per month if you do not use TNZ for home phone service) doesn’t promise any particular speed, just unlimited use. New Zealand gets two choices: usage capped or speed throttled broadband.  Watch this video and ponder what it would be like to get stuck with this kind of service from your broadband provider. (3 minutes)

Clearwire this week changed their terms and conditions governing the use of their service.  The changes are sufficiently materially adverse that subscribers under contract should be able to cancel service, if they wish, without incurring any early termination fee.

The most prominent change is Clearwire’s ability to crack down on whatever they define “excessive usage” to be, and the redefining of ‘unlimited service’ as ‘limited and speed throttled service.’

All-New to the Clearwire Terms & Conditions:

Nature of the Service.The Service provided to you is intended for reasonable, periodic, non-continuous use by a person using a computing device, consistent with the type of use made by a typical individual consumer of our Internet services. Examples of allowed uses of our Service include web surfing, sending and receiving email, sending and receiving photographs, occasional on-line gaming, and the occasional non-continuous streaming of videos and downloading of files. Examples of uses that are not permitted include the continuous unattended streaming, downloading or uploading of videos or other files, maintaining an unattended or continuous uninterrupted connection to the Internet such as through a web camera or machine to machine connections that do not involve active participation by a person, or operating an Internet hosting service such as web hosting or gaming hosting. You may not use the Service in a manner that impairs the user experience of other users, or that otherwise impairs network performance. Both fixed wire-line Internet service and wireless Internet service have limited bandwidth capacity. Like fixed wire-line service, CLEAR’s Service can suffer from congestion and reduced performance when usage by some individuals exceeds the usage of typical individual consumers, thus having a negative impact on the entire network. This AUP is intended to ensure that the activities of a few users do not unfairly impair the activities of all users of the Service.

Clearwire’s unlimited use plans have always carried a clause giving the company the right to terminate or suspend service for exceptionally excessive usage, after several contacts with customers.  The old language:

Unlimited Use Plans. (Effective January 9, 2009)

While the determination of what constitutes excessive use depends on the amountspecific state of data you may download or upload during a monththe network at any given time, you shouldexcessive use will bethat such unlimited” plans are nevertheless subject todetermined by resource consumption and not by the provisionsuse of this AUPany particular application. What this means is that allWhen feasible, upon observation of the provisions described in this AUPan excessive use pattern, including those that describe how Clearwire may perform reasonable network management such as reducingwill attempt to contact you by e-mail at the data ratee-mail address on file or otherwise to alert you to your excessive use of bandwidth intensive users during periodsand to help determine the cause. Clearwire representatives also are available to explain the parameters of congestion, will applythis AUP and to yourhelp you avoid another excessive use incident or to upgrade you to a different class of the Service that comports with your usage. The term unlimited” means that we willIf you are unavailable or do not place a limit on how much datarespond to Clearwire’s attempt to contact you uploadregarding excessive use, or download during a monthif excessive use is ongoing or other particular periodrecurring, howeverClearwire reserves the right, it does not mean that we will not take stepsset forth in the “AUP Enforcement and Notice” provisions below, to reduce your data rate during periods of congestionact immediately and without further notice to restrict, suspend or take other actions described in this AUP whenterminate your usage is negatively impacting other subscribers to our Service.

The new language now permits the company to use “network management” techniques such as reducing your speed if they feel you are excessively using Clearwire’s “unlimited” service.  Although the new language sounds friendlier — deleting references to suspending or terminating your service — Clearwire’s Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) maintains those rights in another section.  When all is said and done, Clearwire still gets to limit your usage -and- can now also reduce your speed:

Unlimited Use Plans. (Effective November 22, 2009)

If you subscribe to a service plan that does not impose limitsWhile the determination of what constitutes excessive use depends on the amountspecific state of data you may download or upload during a monththe network at any given time, you shouldexcessive use will be aware that such “unlimited” plans are nevertheless subject todetermined by resource consumption and not by the provisionsuse of this AUPany particular application. What this means is that allWhen feasible, upon observation of the provisions described in this AUPan excessive use pattern, including those that describe how Clearwire may perform reasonable network management such as reducingwill attempt to contact you by e-mail at the data ratee-mail address on file or otherwise to alert you to your excessive use of bandwidth intensive users during periodsand to help determine the cause. Clearwire representatives also are available to explain the parameters of congestion, will applythis AUP and to yourhelp you avoid another excessive useincident or to upgrade you to a different class of the Servicethat comports with your usage. The term “unlimited” means that we willIf you are unavailable or do not place a limit on how much datarespond to Clearwire’s attempt to contact you uploadregarding excessive use, or download during a monthif excessive use is ongoing or other particular periodrecurring, howeverClearwire reserves the right, it does not mean that we will not take stepsset forth in the “AUP Enforcement and Notice” provisions below, to reduce your data rate during periods of congestionact immediately and without further notice to restrict, suspend or take other actions described in this AUP whenterminate your usage is negatively impacting other subscribers to our Service.

Clearwire (and the soon-to-be-launched Road Runner Mobile from Time Warner Cable and Comcast’s mobile broadband option) share the same Clearwire WiMax network.  As investors in Clearwire, the cable operators have won the right to rebrand the service to provide a mobile option for their broadband customers.

Customers considering signing up for service should carefully verify the terms and conditions of their contract, as well as the quality of service provided where you expect to use the service the most.  Several websites highly critical of Clearwire have been established with hundreds of upset customers who were promised broadband speeds and barely managed much more than dial-up speeds using the service.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

“Clearwireblows” ran a speed test illustrating serious speed problems using Clearwire in Texas this past April.  (2 minutes)

Customers who wish to end their contract without incurring a cancellation fee can do so following this procedure:

1. Contact Clearwire in writing and inform them you are exercising your right to terminate service without charge or penalty because of materially disadvantageous changes to the Clearwire Terms and Conditions effective November 22, 2009.  Under their terms, you have a right to discontinue service in accordance with the section “Revisions: Reservation of Rights.”  Namely, “…if you do not wish to continue Service after a change that is materially disadvantageous to you, you may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Clearwire within twenty (20) days of the effective date of the modification.”  The link above contains contact addresses you may use.
2. Contact customer service by telephone and inform them you have followed the written cancellation procedure outlined above.
3. Be certain to insist Clearwire not charge any termination fees, and that you do not agree to pay any such fees.
4. Should you experience any difficulties, contact the Better Business Bureau as this customer did.  The BBB helped facilitate an immediate cancellation with no termination fees.

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.