Home » broadband » Recent Articles:

Internet Service Providers Object to Letting the FCC Know About Their Service Outages

Phillip Dampier October 27, 2011 Competition, Consumer News Comments Off on Internet Service Providers Object to Letting the FCC Know About Their Service Outages

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to require Internet Service Providers to report service outages may meet with legal challenges, despite the agency’s insistence the program is designed to help monitor network reliability and potential cybersecurity threats.

The FCC has been seeking service outage reports since May, when it first asked providers for information to track 911 outages over broadband Voice Over IP networks and determine if further regulations were needed to increase service reliability.

The agency is also reported to be concerned about botnet attacks — coordinated denial-of-service attacks on individual websites done for political, personal, or profit-motivated reasons.

Providers object to turning over the data, accusing the agency of exceeding its authority.  Some are signalling they might challenge the requirements in court if the Commission doesn’t curtail the program.

Providers may be objecting because the data collected could become public, allowing anyone to chart the reliability of each respective broadband service provider.  Competitors could potentially use that information to their advantage.  Additionally, data that shows ongoing problems could be used to justify additional oversight or regulatory measures to improve performance. Beyond NIS2, the DORA Readiness Check helps organizations prepare for the Digital Operational Resilience Act. By pinpointing gaps in your current setup, you’ll gain clear insights into necessary enhancements.

Jeffery Goldthorp, the FCC’s associate bureau chief for cybersecurity and homeland security admits the agency might not have a clear mandate to pursue its monitoring program, telling CNET there was ambiguity in the agency’s authority.

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell goes further, saying “in my view, we do not have Congress’s authority to act as suggested.”

London Gets 1Gbps Fiber Broadband for $79.80 a Month

Phillip Dampier October 26, 2011 Broadband Speed, Competition 8 Comments

While British Telecom and Virgin rely on partial fiber networks to deliver faster broadband, they can’t touch the speeds on offer from Hyperoptic, a new start-up fiber t0 the home provider competing for broadband customers in London.  For just under $80 a month, customers can purchase the UK’s first 1Gbps broadband offering, which lets you download an HD movie in about 40 seconds.

Hyperoptic’s fast speeds come from the fact it is a true fiber-to-the-home provider.  As a startup, the company is being very selective about where it is deploying service, starting with housing estates and multi-dwelling units where a significant number of customers can be reached within a single building or complex.  The first completed fiber build serves 133 apartments in a building in Battersea.  The company plans to extend the service to the rest of the complex in the coming months, and their effort has been aided by the fact the building is already “fiber-ready,” with pre-existing fiber faceplates ready for hookup.  Hyperoptic is expected to first focus on more modern housing estates that have already made accommodations for modern telecommunications, be it coaxial cable, Ethernet, or fiber.

The company is competing with providers who already claim to deliver a fiber experience, but the company founder says those claims are based on half-truths.

“We are basing our platform on bringing fiber direct to the customer,” Hyperoptic founder and chairman Boris Ivanovic told PC Pro. “There’s been a lot of different marketing speak going on in the UK talking about what real fiber is and everyone is taking credit for doing fiber. But BT Infinity and Virgin – what they are doing is only partial fiber, and what we are doing here is bringing fiber into the buildings and directly to customers and that allows us to deliver 1Gbps.”

Hyperoptic’s services are priced to aggressively compete with other providers:

  • 20/20Mbps:  $20/mo
  • 100/100Mbps:  $40/mo
  • 1000/1000Mbps: $80/mo

A $19.95 phone line rental charge and $64 installation fee applies.

An Open Letter from a Frontier Communications Employee

Stop the Cap! received this unsolicited letter from an employee working at Frontier Communications about how the company has been running the business and treating their customers.  We’ve been able to independently verify enough of this letter, by talking with other Frontier employees, to highlight it for our readers. 

Frontier Communications is a long way from its progenitor (and namesake) — Rochester Telephone Corporation, which operated locally with excellence for 100 years.  Rochester Tel changed its name to Frontier Communications as it sought to abandon its image as a basic phone company.  It was later sold to Global Crossings, which later sold it to Citizens Communications, which decided to adopt the Frontier name itself.

I work for a major well known utility company and I feel ethically compelled to inform someone that there are practices within my company that are being done without consideration for the consumer. My employment there has extended well over three years now and I have been turning a blind eye to what they call ‘customer service.’ I believe that I have the duty to expose some of these inner-workings to the public. I work for Frontier Communications.

I do not want to be named nor am I going to divulge any names of my fellow employees. I will give details about some of the misinformation given to customers, issues with systems that cause billing problems, and a few other known issues that upper management continues to overlook.

Recently there were a few groups of employees force-fed training on Frontier’s newest [customer support] systems. It was crammed into an eight day course. The majority of the time the training systems were down, certain elements of the systems were overlooked with promises that employees will learn how to manage these while on the floor. Anxiety and panic swept the call center; worried faces riddled with anger and frustration stood out everywhere. All except the higher management. They kept saying, ‘don’t worry, you guys will be OK’ or ‘we have to get this call volume down’. But the statement that never failed was, ‘don’t forget that you need to offer a wide array of services on every call. That’s your job.’ Regardless if a customer is calling in because she/he cannot afford their service as-is, we are required to try and upsell them.

I was employed with Verizon prior to the acquisition to Frontier. It was an exciting day for us because we felt like Verizon’s iron hand was being lifted. But to our dismay the same type of mentality still exists [with Frontier]. The changes Frontier made caused a lot of panic as well. We are trained for sales rather than customer service even though Frontier’s values are “People, Product, and Profit.” A customer may call in with a major issue, often irritated and frustrated.  We are expected to entice them to purchase an additional product that may or may not work.

I will enlighten you on that subject.  Our ‘network congestion’ issue with High Speed Internet has caused a tremendous volume of calls to the call centers and tech support. There were periods when calls to these departments exceeded 30 minutes and even at times close to an hour. Numerous [former Verizon] customers have experienced ‘network congestion’. This issue caused a great deal of frustrated customers to call about their Internet (HSI) service dropping. Some of them experience up and down periods over a few months. I even witnessed some customers that were out for weeks at a time.

How do you sell a product that is not reliable? Netflix made the comment that Frontier has one of the worst broadband services in the nation. Some of us here feel guilty when we sell certain products because we know it may or may not work sometimes. The newest, greatest selling technique we have for HSI is selling it whether or not it is available in a customer’s area. Customers call in livid and frustrated because they were told they can get a service and now they are being told their area is not available for that upgrade to HSI quite yet.

Another odd situation we have going on right now is our new phone systems are Voice Over IP. We are the phone company right? Then why are we using that type of system? Among the numerous issues: dropped calls, noise on the line, being unable to fully understand what the customer is saying & vice-versa, and the system totally freezing up while on a call.

There are some of us who have just sat around because we were unable to access anything. One rep became concerned because their training for the phone system consisted of a learning document they were given minutes before they were expected to use it. A coach was made aware of her concerns and his comment was more or less ‘well then you need to ask if you need help’. That reply was heard by a few different reps and all were taken aback. Why can’t we get the training we need to navigate through all of the madness?

Call volume. How are we going to be able to handle issues like repair and collections, write orders properly, and steer through a calling system that just doesn’t seem to be working correctly? Apparently it doesn’t matter as long as we upsell our customers.

One of the last issues I’m going to share with you is a critical issue that a new rep has brought to our attention and higher management as well. When a service  appointment — repair, new install, etc. — is not fulfilled, the customer is NOT called back to let them know their scheduled appointment will not be kept, much less make an effort to reschedule it. Management and other departments know about this and still no efforts have been made to fix it. I have seen this on my end as well. What do you say to a customer who asks, ’why didn’t anyone call?’ There’s no real honest way to answer that properly.

I don’t know what is going to happen with the pending lawsuit that Frontier has from the $1.50 surcharge for HSI service but I do know that a lot of us here don’t agree with the charge and how it was handled. We were given a document on what to say when the customer calls in and disputes the charge. It was a paragraph, more or less, stating we are imposing this surcharge and there’s nothing we can do to waive it.

I now realize I have a made a poor choice in my career. I have great empathy for the customer and I’m fed up with how they are treated as well as the employees.

Thank you for listening,

“Joan Jones” (Anonymous)

Canada’s Fiber Future: A Pipe Dream for Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and B.C.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

South Africa Says Good Riddance to Usage Caps: Telkom Takes the Limits Off

Phillip Dampier October 5, 2011 Broadband Speed, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Wireless Broadband Comments Off on South Africa Says Good Riddance to Usage Caps: Telkom Takes the Limits Off

South Africa’s largest Internet Service Provider, the former state-owned telephone company Telkom, has introduced uncapped broadband service across the country.

Telkom’s Do Uncapped offering removes usage limits after “intensive market research” and “data usage trials” concluded South African consumers absolutely despise usage limits on their Internet access.

In fact, in overwhelming numbers, consumers preferred unlimited access over faster broadband speed packages.  Even throttled “fair use” policies which slightly reduce speeds during peak usage periods are more tolerable than restricted usage allowances, overlimit fees, and punishing “dial-up” speeds when customers exceed their usage limit.

“To feed the hunger for data, Telkom has tailored its Do Uncapped range according to consumer usage patterns derived from findings of the Company’s broadband trials on higher cap trials conducted earlier this year,” the company said in a statement.

Inexpensive, lower speed offerings are available at 384kbps and 1Mbps, but do come with certain daytime speed restrictions, especially on peer to peer traffic.  The premium 4Mbps package is truly unlimited.

South Africa’s challenged telephone network has resulted in relatively low broadband speeds when compared against Asia, North America, and Europe, but the unlimited offerings are being welcomed by Telkom customers across the country.

Because DSL service from the phone company has traditionally been slow and, until recently, expensive, many South Africans rely primarily on wireless mobile services, which can be more reliable in some parts of the country.  Some purchase wireless broadband service from providers like MTN instead of DSL from the phone company.

As a home broadband replacement, wireless mobile broadband has always meant compromising on usage, because most plans are heavily capped and some block access to certain web content.  But MTN is responding to Telkom’s move away from usage caps by removing them from its own wireless network, at least during a promotion.

MTN is kicking off the South African summer with its newest promotion, unlimited speed and uncapped wireless data access on the company’s HSPA+ network, effective Oct. 1.

The limits stay off until the end of summer — Jan 2012.

“We have seen a significant number of our customers taking up latest smartphones, tablet PCs, wireless routers and laptop deals that MTN is offering,” said Serame Taukobong, MTN South Africa Chief Marketing Officer. “This promotion is a response to the increased data appetite that comes with the usage of these devices.”

That’s an attitude foreign to North American mobile operators, who see those devices as enemies of their wireless network (or the basis for future profits).  In South Africa, consumers adopting new wireless devices and increased usage has triggered a marketplace response that eases or ends usage caps.  In North America, the opposite is happening.

MTN has slashed its mobile broadband prices over the course of 2011 for the highest speed, unlimited access package from a budget-busting $248 a month to $111 a month.  A slower speed unlimited package now sells for $37 a month.  That becomes very affordable for Internet users who use their mobile devices exclusively for access.  Even a package selling over $100 a month may be comparably affordable to an American who is required to maintain a home broadband and mobile broadband account.

MTN even allows wireless peer to peer traffic, but the company asks subscribers to be reasonable and not leave it running 24/7.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!