When a company like Comcast grows so big, it no longer cares whether its marketing claims are true or false, perhaps it is time to put those claims to the test in court or before a state attorney general for review.

Recently, Comcast’s claim it runs the fastest Internet Service Provider in the nation came under scrutiny by the Better Business Bureau. The simple truth is, Comcast is not the fastest ISP in the nation — not even close. But because PC Magazine ran a limited test of some national broadband providers and found Comcast barely making it to the top, the cable giant has been running ads across the country that are disingenuous and incomplete at best, completely misleading and false at worst.

Phillip “Comcast is not too big to deserve a FAIL“ Dampier

The National Advertising Division of the BBB, a self-regulating industry-controlled body, found the advertising deceptive, which says a lot for a group that lives or dies on the whims of the industries that support its operations.

NAD previously determined that Comcast cannot, based on its current offerings, make an unqualified claim in national advertising to be faster than the competition. NAD noted that while Comcast is the fastest Internet option for 94 percent of the 52 million households in its competitive footprint, it is not the fastest where Verizon FiOS is available.

Consumers need deep pockets to read the actual report that mildly criticizes Comcast. The NAD keeps the public out of its business with a subscription rate of $550 a year to read detailed individual case reports. We learned about the case from one of our readers who shared a copy.

Among the false claims Comcast is still making:

• “It’s official.  We’re the fastest.” — Officially, Comcast is not the fastest.
• “…the fastest downloads available.” — False.
• “FiOS Does Not Live up to Expectations….With Speeds of Up to 105Mbps, XFINITY was rated as the fastest Internet provider in the nation by PC Magazine.” — But FiOS speeds are faster than Comcast. PC Magazine did not test Verizon FiOS.

Comcast agreed to consider making changes to their advertising to comply, but that now appears to be a non-starter.

In Chattanooga, Tenn., EPB Fiber broadband beats the pants off Comcast. No, it’s actually worse than that. EPB embarrasses Comcast’s comparatively slow broadband service. While Comcast was looking for a way to manipulate customers into using its Xbox online video app to avoid their unjustified usage cap, EPB customers were bypassing that problem altogether by choosing EPB’s fiber to the home service that doesn’t have usage caps and delivers speeds up to 1Gbps.  Comcast, (remember they are “America’s fastest”) tops out at 105Mbps.

One would think Comcast would be hurrying their blatantly false advertising off the air and out of sight in Chattanooga, but the company has refused.

The Times Free Press reports Comcast won’t be making any changes to their ads, and has actually doubled-down with more blatantly false marketing claims. Why? Because EPB is too small of a player for Comcast to be concerned with telling the truth:

Jim Weigert, vice president and general manager of Comcast in Chattanooga, said the request won’t apply to this area and advertising will stay the same.

“I don’t see any changes at all,” he said. “Our use of that designation as the fastest ISP and fastest commercial ISP is still the same and will still be used the same as it is today.”

Weigert said local networks such as EPB, which delivers maximum download speeds about 10 times faster than those of Comcast, is too small of a player to affect the region’s advertising or PC Magazine‘s designation.

“Those awards exist, and we just need to make sure we’re using it properly and quoting it properly,” he said. “It doesn’t reference EPB at all because they’re not national. They’re not big enough to get that attention.”

In other words, actual facts about broadband speed don’t matter. With standards like this, it is only a matter of time before we’ll be seeing program length commercials for snake oil.

Beyond the fact Comcast is morally and ethically wrong here, I’m not sure I would want my company admitting to customers truth should come in second. With that kind of attitude, Comcast customers should put their wallets in their front pockets, leave the kids home and lock their car doors before visiting a Comcast Cable Store.

Deborah Dwyer, public relations supervisor for EPB, notes the Comcast ads are self-serving and “cause pretty significant confusion among the public.”

At least the public that still believes what Comcast Cable tells them represents the truth.

Customers promised big savings from dropping their old Verizon plans found tricks, traps, and speed reductions.

Beware of telemarketers bearing gifts.

Frontier Communications has embarked on a sales push to convince customers adopted from Verizon Communications to “upgrade” their grandfathered Verizon broadband plans to new offerings from Frontier.

But Stop the Cap! has received more than a dozen complaints from customers who discovered their broadband speeds were slashed, sometimes significantly, after taking Frontier up on one of their offers.

“Whenever you call Frontier customer service, they always have an offer for you that they claim will save you money and I fell for it,” Tim Falston says.

Falston has been a Stop the Cap! reader since he learned Frontier Communications was buying out his Verizon landline in 2010.

“Frontier promised me nothing would change after they took over from Verizon, but of course a lot changed when I agreed to switch to a new bundled service package Frontier was offering for my phone and Internet service,” Falston writes.

Falston thought he was keeping his 8Mbps DSL service Verizon had been selling him for nearly five years, only now he would save at least $10 a month bundling some of Frontier’s other products into his package. A few days after signing up, he found his broadband speeds were lacking. It turned out Frontier reduced his speed to just under 3Mbps. A few days later, the company also mailed him a new DSL modem/router that he later learned came with a monthly fee that more than wiped out his “savings.”

“This was the worst decision I ever made, and Frontier never warned me the package I was signing up for cut my speeds more than half and stuck me with a modem I don’t want or need,” Falston said.

Unfortunately, when Falston called Frontier to switch back to his old plan, he was told it was no longer available and he had to choose from Frontier’s current services that came with higher prices and term contracts.

Surprise! Modem rental fee!

“It’s bait and switch and should be illegal,” Falston said. “I was told that everything about my service was to stay the same if I agreed to their bundle, and I think they figured most people have no idea about speeds and just accept what they are given, but I was never told about the modem or the rental fee that comes with it, and my old Verizon equipment worked just fine.”

Frontier won’t even sell Falston 8Mbps service, even though he had it for half a decade.

“They want to sell me 3Mbps and tell me that is all my line will support,” Falston complains. “That was after I finally convinced them to talk to me — the account is in the wife’s name and Frontier blocked me because of ‘security reasons’ until they spoke with her.”

Stop the Cap! recommended Falston schedule a service call and speak to a local technician about the problem. Experience shows employees on the ground far away from the customer service department can often cut through Frontier’s red tape. That worked for Falston who quickly got his old Verizon plan back after the technician made a few phone calls from Falston’s home.

“The tech shook his head and said he deals with these problems all day long and has managed to get customers back on old plans Frontier’s customer service says are long gone,” Falston said. “He told me specifically ‘do not change any plans you signed up for with Verizon — all of the offers from Frontier come at higher prices and fewer features.'”

So if Frontier has an offer you cannot refuse, refuse it anyway, at least if your old phone company was Verizon Communications. You are probably better off with what you have today.

Six college towns will benefit from the nation’s first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment, thanks to $200 million in capital funding to get the broadband networks off the ground.

The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program leverages local government, universities, private capital, and the public to jointly support and foster the development of new fiber optic networks.

The new program claims it will offer competitively-priced super-fast broadband through projects that will cover neighborhoods of 5,000-10,000 people and communities up to 100,000 in size.  Selection of the six winning communities will be announced between this fall and next spring.

“Gigabit Squared created the Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program to help select Gig.U communities build and test gigabit speed broadband networks with speeds from 100 to 1000 times faster than what Americans have today,” the company said in a statement.

“The United States is behind in the world for Internet speed,” said Mark Ansboury, Gigabit’s president and co-founder. “The goal is to help get us out front for a platform of innovation.”

That platform is certainly not forthcoming from the country’s largest broadband providers, who according to Ansboury have been pulling back on wired infrastructure upgrades in recent years, shifting focus to more profitable wireless networks.

Gigabit Squared defines the next generation of broadband Internet in terms of speed, declaring 2,000Mbps (2Gbps) as the target to achieve.

The winning projects will be sponsored by Gig.U members, which include:

• Arizona State University
• California Institute of Technology
• Case Western Reserve University
• Colorado State University
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• The Georgia Institute of Technology
• Howard University
• Indiana University
• Michigan State University
• North Carolina State University
• Penn State University
• University of Alaska – Fairbanks
• University of Arizona
• University of Chicago
• University of Colorado – Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Hawaii
• University of Illinois
• University of Kentucky
• University of Louisville
• University of Maine
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Missouri
• University of Montana
• University of Nebraska – Lincoln
• University of New Mexico
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• University of Oklahoma
• University of South Florida
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• West Virginia University

Blair Levin, executive director at Gig.U, believes private American telecom companies will always be constrained from delivering world class broadband comparable to South Korea or Japan because of Wall Street opposition to the investment required to construct them. In the eyes of investors, today’s slower networks, in their estimation, do just fine.

Gig.U believes that they have a solution, at least for towns with a sizable university system that can serve as host of the next generation broadband network:

First, any community that wants its residents to have access to a network that delivers world-leading bandwidth can do so. The barrier is not technology or economics. The barrier is organization; specifically, organizing demand and improved use of underutilized assets, such as rights of way, dark fiber, or in more rural areas, spectrum. The responses identified a multitude of ways local communities can improve the private investment case by lowering investment and risk, and increasing revenues for private players willing to upgrade or build new networks without budget outlays from the local government.

Second, the responses confirmed that university communities have the easiest organizing task and greatest upside. Their density, demographics and demand make the current economics more favorable for an upgrade than other communities. For example, the high percentage of the population in university communities living in multiple dwelling units makes the economics of an upgrade far more favorable than for communities composed largely of single-family homes. With the growing importance of Big Data for the economy and the society, university communities are the natural havens for such enterprises to be born and prosper. Through the Gig.U process, our communities are already exploring more than a half-dozen paths to achieve an upgrade; paths that will be replicable for others and will deliver a major step forward in providing America a strategic broadband advantage.

Outside of a handful of upstart private competitors like California-based Sonic.net, most fiber broadband expansion come from private companies like Google — building an experimental fiber-to-the-home network in Kansas City, community-owned broadband services coordinated by local town or city government, co-op telecommunications companies owned by their subscribers, or municipal utilities.

While those efforts are typically committed to the concept of “universal service” — wiring their entire communities — the Gig.U project targets funding only for networks in and around university campuses.

The New America Foundation builds on Gig.U’s premise in its own recent report, “Universities as Hubs for Next Generation Networks,” which argues affordable expansion of broadband can win community support when the public has the right to also benefit from those networks. While Gig.U’s approach suggests the project will target fiber broadband directly to the homes qualified to receive it, the New America Foundation supports the construction of mesh wireless Wi-Fi networks to keep construction costs low for neighborhoods targeted for service.

An earlier project in Orono and Old Town, Maine may afford a preview of Gig.U’s vision, as that collaboration between the University of Maine and private fiber provider GWI is already in its construction phase. For those lucky enough to live within range of the fiber project, broadband speeds will far exceed what incumbents Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications deliver. FairPoint has fought similar projects (and GWI specifically) for years.

Will private providers object to the Gig.U effort to win local governments’ favor in the six cities eventually chosen for service? History suggests the answer will be yes, at least to the extent local cable and phone companies demand the same concessions for easy pole access, reduced pole attachment fees, and easing of zoning restrictions and procedures Gig.U project coordinators expect.

Levin has stressed Gig.U projects are based on university and private funding sources, not taxpayer dollars. That may also limit how much objection commercial providers may be able to raise against the projects.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABI Bangor Orono Maine Getting Faster Service 5-16-12.flv[/flv]

WABI in Bangor previews the new gigabit broadband network being constructed in Orono and Old Town, Maine.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications will not roll out a national IPTV service to compete with cable operators in all of its service areas, but is still exploring its options for providing pay-TV service in larger cities.

That decision, announced by executive vice president and chief financial officer Donald R. Shassian, came at last week’s Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference sponsored by Wall Street investment bank J.P. Morgan.

Shassian used the occasion to clarify remarks made during the company’s first-quarter results conference call, which caused some shareholders and analysts concern about the company’s lackluster performance, capital spending plans, and company debt that will come due early next year.

Shassian said Frontier will not deploy U-verse-like IPTV service across its entire national service area, but is considering the future option of delivering the service (and better broadband speeds) theoretically in selected markets.

Shassian also raised the prospect of modifying part of its acquired fiber-to-the-home FiOS network to fiber to the neighborhood technology that companies like AT&T are currently using. But for the foreseeable future, most Frontier customers will have to subscribe to satellite television if they want a video package with their home phone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! was the first to report Frontier was considering licensing AT&T U-verse to use in selected larger markets where the company has lost considerable ground against cable competitors that deliver consistently faster broadband service.

Wall Street reaction to the proposal has been negative, with concerns Frontier will need to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to deploy such a network.

Shassian sought to distance the company from any suggestion they will further increase spending on network improvements. In fact, Shassian says Frontier will end its broadband expansion program, and the extra spending to pay for it, by 2013.

“Our capital expenditure spending will decrease in 2013 as the geographic broadband expansion of our network concludes,” Shassian said. “We expect capital expenditures to drop by approximately $100 million in 2013.”

In lieu of national IPTV service, Frontier remains committed to its resale partnership with satellite TV provider Dish Network. But Shassian did admit U-verse technology is among the options the company is exploring to remain competitive.

Surprisingly, Shassian also said the company was considering partially modifying its acquired FiOS network in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, because of the cost savings it could deliver.

“We have been evaluating alternative platforms which could generate savings from capital expenditures, video transport and even content costs that can be significant to the FiOS video market business,” Shassian said. “I want to be clear that we have no plans to deploy IPTV across our nationwide network and therefore do not see upward CapEx pressure from any potential changes in our facilities-based video strategy.”

Asked about the potential cost savings afforded by swapping out FiOS technology for IPTV fiber to the neighborhood service, Shassian said it could open the door to expanding service in areas where existing copper-based last mile network facilities can sustain a minimum of 20Mbps broadband service. Frontier claims 1.9 million homes in its service area can receive 20Mbps today, of which 600,000 are currently within a Frontier FiOS service area.

“If we changed, we may have to change out set top boxes on [existing FiOS customers],” Shassian said.

In this clip, Frontier Communications’ executive VP and chief financial officer Don Shassian speaks to a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston about the company’s broadband and IPTV plans. (May 15-17, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The implication of substantially altering the company’s existing fiber-to-the-home network baffled some analysts.

One, who talked with Stop the Cap! asking not to be attributed, suspects Shassian’s role as a financial officer at Frontier may explain part of the mystery.

“He’s not the chief technology officer, and I suspect he is partly confused about the different technologies,” the analyst explains. “I can’t see Frontier tearing down their current network, but it may make sense for them to switch technology strategies when considering if and where they can expand their network.”

“Frontier’s first quarter results were more than disappointing, and the company is being exceptionally cautious about anything that requires spending right now,” the analyst said. “The next shoe to drop is another dividend cut, which would kill the stock in the market, and if we think Frontier will spend a billion to improve its network, that dividend is going down.”

Our source says he does not have much confidence in Frontier’s current management.

“They talk a nice story, but the numbers never finally add up,” he says. “Rescuing wireline is expensive and companies always promise it will cost incrementally little to expand revenue-enhancing broadband to their rural customers, but if that were true, the companies would have already done it, and without significant spending they have not.”

Highlights:

• Company still losing video customers, but picking up phone customers (on the cheap), and winning with broadband;
• Broadband consumption pricing still CEO’s favorite flavor of Internet billing, but only for other people’s content;
• Broadband speed matters, as Time Warner continues to win over dissatisfied DSL customers;
• ‘If customers love our broadband, we can charge more for it;’
• Verizon/Time Warner’s cooperative marketing agreement starts with discounts but ends with “exclusive product enhancements.”
• The future of Time Warner Cable Wi-Fi.

Time Warner Cable reported unexpectedly strong profits in its first quarter as the company’s broadband services helped stem the losses from departing cable TV customers.

The cable operator told investors it boosted profits 18%, mostly from increasing revenue the company earns selling broadband access to the Internet and convincing customers to add more Time Warner services.

Time Warner Cable said goodbye to 94,000 residential video subscribers last quarter, higher than analysts expected. But that did little damage to earnings because the company picked up an additional 214,000 broadband customers over the same period, most switching from phone company DSL service.

Time Warner Cable’s increasingly aggressive bundled service promotions, particularly on its triple-play offer of cable, broadband, and phone service, even managed to attract 112,000 new landline customers — a significant accomplishment as Americans continue to disconnect traditional phone lines in favor of cell phones.  It also helped increase the average revenue earned per subscriber.  Time Warner Cable pitches double play promotions as low as $79.00 a month. For just $10 a month more, customers can add a third service, and many do.

Most discounts last for one year, but the operator now often sends letters to customers reaching the end of their promotion offering additional, but lower-value discounts going forward. This has limited bill shock for customers surprised by the company’s regular prices. It also might reduce the urge for customers to shop around for a better deal.

Judging from the company’s financial results, most customers hang on to Time Warner Cable’s broadband regardless of price, if the competition happens to be traditional DSL from the phone company. In fact, as phone and cable companies realize they have sold broadband to virtually every home in their service area that wants it, growth in subscriber numbers going forward largely depends on poaching customers from someone else.  Nobody makes that easier than phone companies trying to sell customers DSL with speeds under 10Mbps.  According to CEO Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable picked up more new broadband customers than Verizon and AT&T combined.

Time Warner Cable broadband speeds give headaches to phone companies trying to sell traditional DSL.

While phone companies continue to argue that speeds don’t matter (at least for their DSL product line), Time Warner believes otherwise and apparently so do their new customers.  The company reports that almost two-thirds of those dumping DSL said their old service was too slow.

Much of the company’s growth in broadband revenue is also coming from the high end, as customers increasingly gravitate towards faster broadband speed tiers.

Britt

Residential DOCSIS 3 (Extreme/Ultimate) customers increased 50% to 218,000, and almost 66% of new broadband customers signed up for either Turbo (20Mbps), Extreme (30Mbps) or Ultimate (50Mbps) service.  Together, these customers now make up 20% of Time Warner’s broadband subscribers, up from less than 16% a year earlier.

Customers are willing to pay higher prices for faster service, a point not lost on Britt, who noted that once customers perceive broadband has more and more value, the company can charge more for it over time.

If Britt’s steadfast belief in Internet Overcharging-consumption billing schemes holds true, some customers might find they are charged substantially more if the company decided to discontinue offering unlimited Internet service.

For now, the company plans to continue its experiments in consumption billing through its Internet Essentials program, now testing in South Texas, which limits customers to 5GB of usage per month before overlimit fees kick in.  But going forward:

“I think we’ve been pretty clear about this, we do think over time, there will be consumption element to the tiers,” Britt said.

But Britt says he wants to keep unlimited access for customers willing to pay for it.

Time Warner's Hotspots in southern California.

“We retained our unlimited tier with no cap (I actually don’t like the term cap),” Britt added. “And I think we should always have that. So that this was not in any way coercive, people who wanted to save money, could. People who wanted to keep what they had have kept it, and they still have unlimited. So our plan is to roll that out further across [the country] as the year goes on.”

Britt noted the company’s own streamed video products would not drain customers’ usage allowances.  But Netflix and other online streamed video would.  Britt adopted the same argument Comcast has used to defend the practice.

“So there’s a set of standards called the IP, Internet Protocol, and those can be used for a wide variety of things in the world,” Britt explains. “There’s also something called the public Internet, which happens to use IP standards. That doesn’t mean those two things are exactly the same. So the application that we have on the iPad is over our closed-circuit network. It’s just a different standard than we’ve used traditionally for our video. But it’s not the public Internet.”

In other developments, the company’s controversial co-marketing agreement with Verizon Wireless has now expanded to four cities: Raleigh, N.C., Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio, and Kansas City, Mo.

Time Warner Cable executives told investors the early stages of the cooperative marketing agreement will consist of a promotion that includes a $200 gift card when a customer buys both a Verizon Wireless plan and upgrades at least one service on their Time Warner Cable account.  But the company plans to gradually reduce discounts and instead offer unspecified “exclusive product enhancements” that will only be available to customers who subscribe to both services.

Lastly, expect Time Warner Cable to continue aggressive deployment of its Wi-Fi networks in New York and Los Angeles.  The company signaled it intends to construct similar Wi-Fi networks in other cities in serves, but most likely not during 2012.