Frontier Communications is targeting promotional offers to customers that have been impacted by cable service outages and rate hikes, despite having a relatively poor service record itself.

Frontier president and chief operating officer Dan McCarthy told investors attending the recent Goldman Sachs Communicopia Conference the company was pulling out all the stops looking for surgical marketing opportunities.

“People don’t wake up every day, and say, ‘I want to switch broadband providers.’ It’s really about finding what is that lever to pull. Sometimes it’s a message at a key point — it could be during an outage, it could be during change of prices for them. It could be there are some substandard speeds that are being offered,” McCarthy said. “We are looking at what is the right mix of messaging and promotional offers that really allow us to do that. I think you’ll see us be pretty aggressive in that area,” he added.

But Frontier itself has had plenty of service problems, and was the only major Internet provider in the country to have lost ground in a July FCC report measuring broadband quality. The company continues to face extensive service outages when fiber cables are cut or copper wiring is stolen by thieves. Recent storms this past summer disrupted 277 Frontier central offices in the Carolinas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The repair work, including overtime and equipment, is expected to cost the company at least $15 million.

Frontier reports it expected to replace at least 167,000 feet of damaged or stolen copper cable and purchased 203,000 backup power generators to keep central exchanges up and running during extended electric outages.

This week, a major service outage struck customers in parts of Ft. Wayne, Ind. after an accident severed an important cable.

A number of customers in Frontier service areas have already disconnected their landlines with the company, but where cable companies do not provide service, Frontier reports it is having success selling a standalone DSL product it dubs, “Simply Broadband.”

“We are seeing success in attracting and retaining customers with this product and it is having a positive impact on our Q3 residential customer counts,” Frontier reports in an SEC filing.

Frontier has also recently announced speed boosts in several states that can deliver up to 25Mbps DSL service to certain customers.

Lafayette, Louisiana has never sit still for private companies bypassing the heart of Cajun country. When electric companies refused to wire the city, the community elected to do it themselves. When Cox Cable and AT&T said no to providing the kind of cutting-edge broadband that would allow Lafayette to protect its reputation as an entrepreneur-driven community, publicly owned utility LUS constructed a fiber to the home broadband network for every resident and business. Today, LUS Fiber has helped transform the parish, with half the unemployment rate of the rest of the country and an attractive place for digital economy jobs. It has even helped curtail well-educated recent graduates moving away in search of high-tech employment.

“There really is no infrastructure more important in the 21st century economy than fiber,” said Geoff Daily, executive director of Fibercorps, a non-profit group promoting digital economic development in Lafayette.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FTTH Council – LUS Profile 9-24-12.flv[/flv]

Watch how LUS Fiber has transformed the lives of students, attracted new high-tech business, and promoted job growth with broadband infrastructure most cable and phone companies simply won’t provide.  (9 minutes)

Broadband’s perceived negative impact on print publications is not just a North American phenomena. In Great Britain, the legendary left-leaning national newspaper the Guardian is pondering its future as the UK heads towards a digital online future.

Leigh

David Leigh is the Guardian’s investigations executive editor:

Having survived more than 40 years at the coalface of British journalism (longer than a term of service in the ancient Roman army), I have been feeling a bit depressed lately by the insistent predictions of media pundits that the Internet is killing off quality newspapers. There are very few people in the trade who are prepared to bet that all our daily papers will still be publishing newsprint copies in five years’ time.

According to conventional wisdom, print is doomed. Circulations are collapsing because readers can get everything they want on the Internet. Not only do those readers dislike the idea of paying to read online, but the existence, among other sites, of the rival licence-fee-payer-funded BBC website guarantees that they will never actually need to pay for a supply of reliable day-to-day news. Paywalls will never really work in a UK context for that reason.

Yet when the day comes that the newspapers are forced to stop printing altogether, it will be a disaster for democracy. The lean pickings from web advertising on a free newspaper site will only pay for a fraction of the high-quality investigative journalism that commercial newspapers generate. We’ll just get the timid BBC on the one hand, and superficial junk on the other.

Leigh is convinced the British public will never pay for online news, but the newspaper industry might survive if broadband users are compelled to cough up, with a new surcharge on Internet access bills amounting to no more than £2 ($3.23US) a month, distributed to news providers in proportion to their UK online readership.

The new surcharge would raise at least £500 million annually — a “transformative” amount of money for the ailing print press, according to Leigh.

Those papers already behind an online paywall would receive substantially less from the fund — an incentive to keep online access to news free and open, albeit not monetarily free for UK readers.

Gannett has erected a paywall for its online newspaper editions

The openly self-interested Guardian Media Group would receive in the region of 20% of the cash – £100m a year from the proposed fund.

Leigh defends the new tax in the context of other European countries. Nordic newspapers, for example, receive a direct government subsidy to help keep the presses rolling.

Such a proposal in North America would likely cause a forest fire of controversy, but a large number of avid Guardian readers are having none of it either.

“You’ve got a cheek,” exclaims Elliot Mills. “What about people who don’t read newspapers online and yet would be paying money to the likes of [Rupert] Murdoch if this ridiculous idea came about.”

“A £2-a-month levy on automobiles could save our horse and cart business,” quips Roman David.

“This has got to be one of the most stupidly selfish articles I’ve read for a long time,” shared Mark. “And, for the Guardian, that takes some doing. Why on earth should the customers of a successful business be forced to subsidize a failing and outdated one?”

Even fellow journalists seem skeptical.

“I’ve been a journalist for 38 years, and I have to tell you – this is a stupid idea,” writes Terry Collmann. “Why should the Internet-using public have to pay for newspaper managements’ failure to set up a workable economic model for the post-newsprint world? It’s like advocating a tax on cars to subsidize horse-drawn hackney cabs and omnibuses. If newspapers can’t make themselves pay, they don’t deserve to survive.”

In North America, many newspaper chains are erecting paywalls to promote new subscription models. Gannett newspapers, for example, provide a limited number of free articles before a reader is prompted to subscribe to the online edition. Print subscribers get free, unlimited access.

The question is whether readers confronted with a paywall will simply take their news reading elsewhere, or will they value the content sufficiently to subscribe to maintain access. Leigh’s proposal would avoid pondering that  altogether with a compulsory license fee similar to what UK residents already pay for the BBC.

[flv width=”448″ height=”276″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/David Cay Johnston The Fine Print How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind 9-19-12.mp4[/flv]

Fellow Brighton, N.Y. resident and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston hits the nail right on the head describing the Big Telecom Swindle that promised America it was going to get something magical called “the information superhighway.”

Over a half-trillion dollars in rate increases later, AT&T and Verizon instead spent a lot of that money on an enormously profitable wireless business that redefines the average American family’s monthly phone bill at $100+. Johnston talks about the broken industry promises of ubiquitous broadband, leaving millions of potential FiOS and U-verse customers behind.

With vast lobbying arms, large cable and phone companies have manipulated public policy to assure they can gouge customers, shortchange workers, and erect barriers to fair play. If consumers don’t pay attention, politicians armed with fat campaign contributions will continue to represent corporate interests, not those of the average American.  

[Note to Mr. Johnston: He isn’t the only reporter paying attention. Hat tip to Stop the Cap! reader Pat McDermott who shared the video.]  (17 minutes)

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)