Phillip Dampier

Today is Stop the Cap!‘s first anniversary.  One year ago today, this website was launched with the news that Frontier Communications, the local telephone company in Rochester, New York and in dozens of mostly rural communities nationwide, had quietly changed its Acceptable Use Policy to define appropriate maximum usage of their DSL service at a measly 5GB per month.

The  boneheaded, out of touch decision was called out for what it was: a profiteering provider pilfering wallets of their broadband customers.

All the signs of a Money Party among cable and DSL providers at consumer expense were apparent last summer.  Time Warner Cable was experimenting with a consumption billing plan in Beaumont, Texas.  In Canada, rhetoric about “bit caps” was already being circulated, trying to convince Canadians that broadband service was somehow as difficult to provide there as it is in Australia and New Zealand, where such caps were already in place.

To bring limits, rationing quotas, and consumption based billing to the United States would require consumers to ignore massive profits broadband providers were harvesting quarter after quarter at existing prices.  But demands for big profits from Wall Street meant they had to come from somewhere, and for cable companies with eroding profits from their cable TV divisions, and telephone companies dealing with disconnect requests for wired telephone lines, broadband was their choice.

It seems that what was insanely profitable a decade ago, when cable modem and DSL service started to introduce Americans to broadband, would now simply be ‘piles of  cash stacked like cord wood’-profitable as traffic increased. As the broadband adoption rate increased, bandwidth costs plummeted, and several providers also proudly trumpeted their reduced investments in their networks as a hallmark of keeping “costs under control.”

Consumers began actually using their service for… broadband-specific services, at the encouragement of providers’ marketing departments, touting their “always on” connection at “blazing fast speeds” to download music, movies, play games, and more.  Network utilization increased, and providers want someone to pay for a “bandwidth crisis” that isn’t a crisis at all.  Responsible investment in network infrastructure should be a given, in recognition that at least a small portion of those growing profits must be spent on maintaining and improving service.

One year ago, I laid out what was before us:

Cable operators have been discussing implementing usage caps in several markets to control what they refer to as a “broadband crisis.” The industry has embarked on a lobbying campaign to convince Americans, with scant evidence and absolutely no independent analysis of their numbers, that the country is headed to a massive shortage in bandwidth in just a few short years, and that a tiny percentage of customers are hogging your bandwidth.

Frontier, ever the rascally competitor, has decided to one-up Time Warner’s Road Runner product by slapping on a usage cap now for DSL customers before Road Runner considers doing the same. And in a spectacularly stupid move competitively, they have implemented a draconian cap that even the cable industry wouldn’t try to implement.

Time Warner Cable “took one for the team,” according to industry-friendly Multichannel News, when it introduced a ludicrous Internet Overcharging experiment of its own announced this past April, which would have “saved” customers money by getting them to “pay for what they use.”  In fact, their plan proved my point last summer, following the same roadmap of “bandwidth crisis” to “heavy downloaders” to trying to squeeze customers for more money for upgrades they could easily have done with the enormous profits they already earn.

Their proposal would have made a deliciously profitable $50 a month Internet service now cost consumers $150 a month with absolutely zero improvement in service, speed, or performance.  But Wall Street would have been happy with the higher returns.

Some 400+ articles later, we’ve educated consumers across North America about the reality of Internet Overcharging.  Despite industry propaganda “education” efforts, astroturfing groups we’ve exposed as having direct connections with the telecommunications providers paying them to produce worthless studies, fear-mongering about Internet brownouts by equipment vendors with solutions to sell, and a hack-a-thon of formerly respectable broadband pioneers and ex-government officials who sold their credentials for a paycheck to lobby and spout industry propaganda, most consumers continue to reject overcharging for their broadband service.  Consumers instinctively know a cable company with a rate change always means a rate increase, and plans to “save people money” actually means they will “protect industry profits.”

We have achieved victory after victory in 2008-2009:

• Fought back against Frontier’s boneheaded plan, and convinced them that DSL can compete best on price and flexibility — no usage cap has ever been enforced at Frontier, and today they are using Time Warner Cable’s blundering profiteering experiment against them in their marketing materials.  For rural Frontier customers with no other broadband provider, that’s a major relief from being stuck with one broadband option that rations their usage to ludicrously low levels.
• Stopped Time Warner Cable’s experiment before it got off the ground in several “test cities.”  The people of Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, and the Triad region of North Carolina did Time Warner Cable customers nationwide a tremendous service in halting this experiment before it spread.  Our efforts even brought a United States Senator, Charles Schumer, to the front lawn of Time Warner Cable in Rochester to announce the nightmare was, at least for now, over.  We managed to even see an end to the overcharging of customers in Beaumont, Texas who lived through a summer, winter, and spring, overpaying for their broadband service.
• We raised hell in the North Carolina state legislature, coming to the aid of Wilson and other communities in the state trying to get municipal broadband projects off the ground.  Communities across the state faced anti-consumer corporate protectionist legislation written by the telecommunications industry, introduced by willing elected officials who took big telecom money, and sold out their constituents.  We killed two bills, forced a sponsor of one such measure to repudiate his own bill, and gave major headaches to legislators that thought they could just cash those big checks, vote against your interests, and you’d never know.  Those days are over.
• We helped bring legislation up in Congress to draw attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging, and have called out providers who want to use their marketing departments to lie to customers about their broadband costs and profits, while being considerably more honest with their shareholders in their quarterly financial reports.  Congressman Eric Massa’s legislation would demand companies show proof of the need to implement consumption based billing.  Indeed, as consumers find out how profitable broadband service is at today’s prices, they’ll never tolerate the profit padding providers seek with tomorrow’s caps/limits, penalties and fees, and unjustified tiers.

As you can see, Internet Overcharging is not a dead concept.  An educated consumer will recognize a swindle when they see one, and providers continue to test overcharging schemes in focus groups in different parts of the country.  They’ll use any analogy, from a buffet lunch to a toll road traveled by big trucks and little cars.  They’re looking for anything they can find to sucker you into believing paying more for your broadband service is fair.

Broadband service must be fast, affordable, and competitive.  In too many communities in Canada and the United States, a monopoly or duopoly marketplace has guaranteed none of those things.  In our second year, we must remain vigilant in our core mission to fight Internet Overcharging, but we also need to fight for more competition, regulation where competition does not exist, oversight over providers, and support for projects that will enhance broadband and make it more affordable than ever.  With your help, we can stand toe to toe with any provider, because the facts are on our side, not theirs, when it comes to Internet Overcharging schemes.

Welcome to Year Two!

Shaw's flyer distributed to Novus customers (click to enlarge)

Letting Shaw get away with this will let them buy up competitors like Novus for a pocket full of Toonies.

[Update 10:16am EDT 7/29] — Brion, one of our loyal readers, had a chance to visit Novus’ website and discovered that Novus has usage allowances on its own broadband service.  That’s naughty.  They are far more generous than Shaw’s, which start at 10GB and are more commonly in the 60GB range for average customers, but that’s besides the point.  The Comments section is where the discussion about the usage allowances are taking place.  We call on Novus to explain their limit policy, and more importantly, consider dropping it altogether and using that as a competitive tool against Shaw, which has far lower limits.  If the vast majority of customers are unlikely to hit them, why have them at all?  Write an Acceptable Use Policy that allows for informal communication with the extreme users consuming terabytes of bandwidth a month and offers them a commercial plan for them to consider.  Don’t be a part of the Internet Overcharging crowd.  We celebrate the kind of competition Novus can provide residents of Vancouver and Burnaby, but we’d like to make sure the competition is worth fighting for.

[Update 6:12pm EDT] — Welcome to Novus customers who discovered this site through Novus’ campaign website. Stop the Cap! is an all-consumer website designed to promote and defend the competitive broadband marketplace in both the United States and Canada.  Paul-Andre Dechêne is our Canadian editor. We are unalterably opposed to Internet Overcharging schemes, which include bit/usage caps, consumption-based pricing, and fees or penalties imposed by providers for exceeding them.  We are pro-competition, pro-Net Neutrality, and opposed to throttles.  Companies like Novus which provide needed competition in the cable television, telephone, and broadband marketplace are essential for a healthy marketplace with rational pricing.  Shaw’s obvious predatory pricing tactics are designed to drive away Novus’ customers, making the company ripe for takeover, by Shaw of course, for a pocketful of Toonies.  While those Shaw prices sound good today, driving away competition guarantees much, much higher pricing tomorrow in a monopoly environment.  Novus is installing fiber optic-based service, which means they are already kilometers ahead of Bell and the usual assortment of the Shaw/Rogers/Vidéotron old school cable companies.

We welcome your views.  Just leave your public comments in the editor box at the bottom of the page (or click the comments link just below the headline).  You can explore more than 400 articles on our issues from the menu bar at the top.  Drop down menus will let you read about the issues that are most relevant to you.  Thanks for joining us.  The fight for affordable broadband continues across Canada, and we welcome your participation.  Bookmark us and drop by regularly. — Phillip M. Dampier, Editor]

Imagine paying $9.95 a month for a digital cable package with two free high-definition set-top boxes with personal video recorders, more than 200 digital channels, more than 25 high-definition channels, and a movie channel package.  Not convinced?  How about also getting two free months thrown in.

Need telephone service?  How about free nationwide/U.S. calling, free installation, and a whole mess of phone features for $9.95 a month?  Don’t forget broadband.  That’s just $9.95 a month as well for 15Mbps service with free Powerboost.  To sweeten the deal to diabetic coma proportions, Shaw will throw in two free months of service for each of those packages, too.

What’s the catch?  You have to live in an area currently served by Novus Entertainment, Inc., an upstart independent fiber-based competitor wiring metro Vancouver, British Columbia.  Novus has aggressively wired high rise condominiums and other densely populated neighborhoods and buildings in Vancouver.  Novus is a tiny company compared to Canada’s national cable companies.  Shaw provides cable television service to 2.1 million customers in several Canadian provinces.  Novus has 9,000 subscribers in 220 buildings in Downtown Vancouver and Burnaby and is planning an expansion into Richmond. Those buildings are being peppered with marketing from Shaw, including this special pricing offer.

Existing Shaw customers, and those who live outside of Novus’ service area, cannot obtain the special pricing.  That is the heart of a complaint lodged by Novus against Shaw at the Competition Bureau of Canada and in the British Columbia Supreme Court, charging Shaw is engaged in predatory pricing designed to put Novus out of business.

“Shaw is abusing its dominant position in the market by offering services – which it normally makes nearly 50 per cent margins on – at a sizeable loss as a means to destroy a local competitor,” said Donna Robertson, Co-President and Chief Legal Officer of Novus Entertainment Inc. “The millions of existing Shaw customers paying full price should be outraged because they’re unwittingly subsidizing the costs that customers with a competitive alternate pay, which is unethical and unfair. If they don’t make the offer available to everyone, current customers should call Shaw and demand the same deal.”

Novus points out Shaw has been “on a buying spree” picking up smaller cable operators and independent providers, but has “been unsuccessful in getting traction with Novus,” company officials suggest.

Stop the Cap! has discovered Shaw’s discount offer is a remarkable one, compared with the regular pricing Shaw customers pay elsewhere:

Shaw Deal for Novus Cable TV Customers

$9.95 digital cable with two personal video recorders, movie channel package, digital channel package
Two free months service

Shaw Deal for Other Canadians

$67.85 HD package
$16.00 Movie Central/HBO or Super Channel premium movie network
$26.95 digital cable “specialty channel” package
$ 3.95 time shifting option
$30.00 Shaw HD personal video recorder set-top box

The grand total: $144.75 per month, with no free months.

“Shaw enjoys increasing cable margins of nearly 50 per cent, which it boasts to investors is ‘best-in-class’ compared to other North American cable companies,” said Robertson. “We believe that Shaw’s targeted campaign is an attempt to eliminate Novus from the competition, which would allow Shaw to maintain its near monopoly status and raise prices for all customers whenever it sees fit”

“Based on Shaw’s actions, we can only assume that they are trying to buy our customers by gouging their own prices,” said Robertson. “They’re offering these services at an enormous loss, while forcing the rest of their customers to make up the difference. We aren’t big enough to compete with Shaw’s predatory pricing, but we are faster and more reliable, and our service is actually less expensive over the long term.”

Novus has launched a website and is busy on Twitter asking Shaw customers across Canada to demand the same special offer they are making available in Novus’ service area.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Do you want the 10 Bucks Offer too? Sign our Petition and call Shaw to request this special rate.

Greater Vancouver – 604-629-8888
Kelowna – 250-762-4433
Prince George – 250-562-1345
Fort St John – 250-785-3039
Victoria – 250-475-5655
Edmonton – 780-490-3555
Calgary – 403-716-6000

[Updated 1:00pm ET: Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney found a video interview done last fall with some Australian providers falling all over themselves to praise themselves for Internet Overcharging schemes, and suggest American providers learn from them how to get away with trying the same thing.]

The group managing director of Telstra (Australia), Justin Milne, wants you to know that the era of free love is over.  They are sick and tired of letting content producers like Ninemsn (a partnership between Australia’s Nine Network ((think ABC or CBS)) and Microsoft’s MSN) use their pipes for free to send those video clips to their customers.  It’s time to break out the checkbooks and start paying them for freeloading on their network.

In a commentary for ZDNet Australia, Milne equates Net Neutrality with greed and “economic self-interest dressed up as moral virtue.”  Pot to kettle, especially when he quotes Franklin Roosevelt:

Franklin Roosevelt said during the Great Depression that heedless self-interest reflected not only bad morals but bad economics too.  Seventy years on, his advice still rings true.

Yes it does, and Telstra is a perfect example of that in practice, offering dreadful broadband service with paltry limits on usage and heavy throttles on speed when one exceeds them, all for a substantial price.  Telstra’s own self-interest leaves a lot of Australians despising the provider and begging for alternatives.  The morality of a company that now wants content providers, with whom it has no business relationship, to pay them money to reach their customers, can be left to the reader’s determination.

This is a tune we’ve heard before.  AT&T’s former CEO Edward Whitacre was the guy who first lit the flame to the gas line of abusive provider tactics using generally the same language:

How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?  (11/07/05)

Justin Milne

After Whitacre was educated that providers already pay hosting fees, infrastructure and licensing costs, and provide the very stuff that drives consumers to sign up for AT&T’s broadband services (and pay them for it) in the first place, Whitacre did a full reversal three months later:

“Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider. And that’s just bad business.” (3/21/06)

Milne follows in Whitacre’s earlier footsteps, except he wants to be paid by everyone.  His customers are already subjected to limits on usage, which have limited Australia’s multimedia online experience years behind most others, and now he wants to have the money he earns from Internet Overcharging -and- the right to limit content that reaches his customers to only those who pay Telstra for the right to deliver it:

“Some content providers such as ninemsn argue that Telstra should subsidise the cost of the ninemsn customers visiting their internet sites. We might also assume [they] would prefer petrol to be free for their cars, and Hayman Island would like air travel to the resort free,” Milne wrote.

“But Shell, Qantas and Woolworths do not give their services away for free. Just like BigPond and the rest of Australia’s ISPs, they need to charge their customers a fee so that over time their investment is recouped,” he said.

Of course, Shell, Qantas and Woolworths only charge once for their products and services.  They don’t install a toll booth on a road and claim that because a full petrol tank weighs more than a near-empty tank, there needs to be a surcharge toll.  Qantas doesn’t send people down the aisle on a flight with a collection plate demanding more money for your ticket because the plane was packed.  All of Australia’s ISPs charge their customers for providing broadband connectivity.  Telstra does as well.  The difference is that Telstra wants to charge its customers a fee and also charge the websites you choose to visit a “transport fee” on top of that.  Your bill as a customer doesn’t go down because of “cost sharing.”  Telstra’s profits simply go up.

Milne’s problem with Net Neutrality is its core principle that all legal data traveling across the net must be treated equally.  That means Telstra has no way to enforce their HissyFit.  In the absence of Net Neutrality, they can block, limit, or throttle those that refuse to pay them.

The cost of the infrastructure to support this traffic has been borne almost entirely by internet service providers, and not by the publishers. In Telstra’s case alone, the company has invested billions of dollars in the Next G mobile broadband network covering 99 per cent of Australian consumers, the HFC cable network in major cities and the extensive ADSL network.

Unfortunately there is no magic pudding, so this investment must be repaid by the beneficiaries of the internet — the users on the one hand, and the publishers who seek to make money from those users through advertising and subscriptions.

Milne almost suggests they did this out of the goodness of their heart, and their investment was not going to be paid back.  The fundamental reality is that subscribers to those services are Telstra’s customers and they pay for that service, such as it is.  That is where that investment will be recouped.  Demanding a company that has no business relationship with your company to pay up or else face the potential of being cut off is akin to extortion.

I offered Milne two alternative suggestions:

• Expand your network to create infrastructure suitable to meet the needs of your subscribers, who will sign on in greater numbers to your service.
• Create hosting platforms and services at attractive prices to content providers who will use your service to host their content (and pay you for actually doing something for them).

Barring that, this is nothing but a HissyFit from another provider looking for a payday.

Michael Chaney, one of our readers, discovered this video interview compilation done last fall by ZDNet.  Enjoy the Internet Overcharging excuse making, where the customer becomes the enemy, and the creativity to find new ways to charge more in without bounds.

“The attempt is being made certainly in the UK but also in the US to push that cost onto the content owner by saying, you pay, and we’ll prioritise your traffic,” he said. “[And] if you don’t pay, your traffic will be really crap.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ZDNet Australia Providers 2008.flv[/flv]

Frontier vs. Time Warner. Frontier vs. Comcast. Frontier vs. NPG Cable. Across 24 states, passing nearly 3,000,000 households, some in America’s smallest towns and others in large cities, Frontier Communications is engaged in a battle of survival in an increasingly competitive American telecommunications marketplace.

In this series examining Frontier Communications, today’s report investigates the competitive realities of a hotly competitive telecommunications industry, becoming more concentrated by the day.    How does Frontier intend to survive and grow, and is it realistic to assume it can in an environment that demands major investments in the delivery of high quality video, low-priced telephone service, and reliable broadband that may be beyond its reach?   Yesterday, we saw how Frontier is attempting to control expenses with the plan to implement a 5GB usage cap on its broadband customers.   Today, we take a look at how Frontier attempts to maintain its market share and deal with customer defections.   Tomorrow, we take a closer look at how quickly Frontier’s telephone line business is losing ground to its competitors.

Frontier’s Background At A Glance

NPG Cable's Rate Card & Channel Lineup In Bullhead City, Arizona. How much of a competitive threat is a cable company without a spellchecker?

Frontier Communications, formerly Citizens Communications, primarily runs originally independent telephone companies in rural and exurban areas bypassed by the former Bell System. The company’s most significant presence is in the 585 area code, home to Rochester, New York. But from Elk Grove, California and Bullhead City, Arizona eastward to the AuSable Valley in central New York to Bluefield, West Virginia, a significant number of Frontier customers are also in some of America’s  small towns and cities.

The size of a community where Frontier operates is often indicative of how much competition the company faces.  Some of Frontier’s most difficult challenges can be found in the  Rochester, N.Y. metropolitan area, numbering nearly 1,000,000 people, where a well entrenched Time Warner has made deep inroads into Frontier’s telephone access line business, eats Frontier for breakfast in the video delivery business, and has been a dominant player in the broadband marketplace since Road Runner arrived  in 1998.

In more rural communities, Frontier often has it much easier,  free from  cable competition  in some  areas, or  competing with a small independent cable company that may be relying on its own aging infrastructure and cannot afford to engage in price and service wars. Where Frontier stands as the lone player or only faces token competition from a small cable company, consumers will likely find  lower speed broadband at higher-than-average prices.

The Threat From Big Cable

Comcast's Product Bundles Threaten Frontier In Many of Their Service Territories

The cable television industry’s entry into telephone service  is among the biggest threats Frontier faces in maintaining their traditional primary revenue source: residential and business wired telephone lines.

Deploying  voice over IP technology, Comcast and Time Warner, the nation’s largest cable operators, have made significant inroads into Frontier’s telephone business where they compete.   Now, even smaller players in the cable industry are prepared to offer voice over IP service to customers.

Joining cable at the table are  mobile telephone companies like Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and AT&T which are also eroding Frontier’s  phone line business  as more people in America  rely exclusively on their mobile phone for telephone service.

How Cable Companies Pick Off Frontier’s Customers

Product Bundling & Discounting: The most important component of cable’s strategy against Frontier is cable’s product bundle, combining a voice over IP telephone line, a cable television package, and a high speed data product. Usually marketed as a “triple play” or “all the best” package, consumers are offered discounts based on the number of components of a package they combine. The more components, the greater the discount.

The product bundle offered by the cable industry has a competitive advantage because cable companies almost always have a more advanced network to deliver these products. Throughout the 1990s, most cable systems spent millions rebuilding their systems to accommodate increasing bandwidth requirements.   The result is a considerably larger pipeline used to deliver data, video, and telephone services.

Frontier’s network is considerably more dated, largely dependent on copper wire strung on telephone poles. While the company has made significant investments in their own  network, including some fiber optics,  in the end, they still rely on the same copper wire infrastructure the industry has used for nearly 100 years to connect to your home or office.

AT&T's U-verse service can deliver the goods over copper wire, but you need deep pockets to develop and deploy this technology. Are Frontier's deep enough?

Although this copper network is suitable for traditional telephone service, and can usually deliver a respectable data service over DSL, the video component has been sorely lacking. While AT&T is testing its U-verse video-over-copper technology in limited markets, Frontier is stuck  reselling Dish Network, the  smaller player in the satellite television marketplace.

Many consumers are resistant to satellite dishes of any size attached to their homes, and the cable industry’s response to Frontier has been the same as to DirecTV and Dish Network themselves: ugly satellite  dishes that suffer from rain/snow fade, require expensive service calls and maintenance, and a limitation on the number of TV sets you can hook up.   Also, no local channels in many areas.   In the end, most people who were even slightly uncomfortable with satellite-delivered TV elected to just stick with what they already had: cable television.

Results of the Dish Network partnership continue to be underwhelming. Sources tell Stop the Cap! the satellite service only succeeds in areas where there is no cable competitor, the customer was already a Dish Network subscriber independent of Frontier, or the incumbent cable company is hampered by a limited channel lineup, no HD channels, or exceptionally bad service. In Rochester, Frontier is actually losing more Dish Network customers than it is adding, and growth is  anemic in many other Frontier regions as well.

Frontier’s inability to provide a comparable quality television service is a critical defect in their competition with cable.

Claiming Inferior Product Quality:  The cable industry wasted no time attacking Frontier’s DSL product, accusing it of not performing consistently. Uneven telephone line quality, distance from the telephone company central office, and signal ingress (when interference or crosstalk gets into wiring and degrades the signal) can all dramatically slow a DSL customer’s  broadband speeds. The cable industry’s marketing often pillories DSL service because of its inability to offer anything close to a speed guarantee, and the fact  it is often slower than cable’s competing product no matter how good your line is.

In areas where a large cable competitor exists, traditionally  that cable operator will have the fastest speed broadband package to sell to customers in that market. This forces Frontier to compete on price.   In return for a significant discount, Frontier  usually locks customers into multi-year service agreements which discourage its customers from  switching to a competitor.   Unfortunately, the company’s inferior product bundle and  long term contract commitments have made it difficult to convince cable customers to switch to Frontier,  particularly if it means taking their video package from Dish Network.

Lampooning Questionable Marketing Practices: In Rochester, Time Warner’s marketing people have had no trouble finding new ways to attack Frontier in its advertising.   While Frontier may be able to pull off some of their hidden extra charges, long term contracts, and restrictive service policies in more rural communities, most of those practices meet strong criticism in Time Warner’s advertising.

Among the more common refrains in Time Warner ads  dismissing Frontier’s DSL  product include:

• Charging a “modem rental fee” as part of Frontier’s DSL service, even if you can supply your own DSL modem.

• Locking customers into a term commitment contract (often lasting several years) for DSL service that offers lower speeds than Time Warner’s Road Runner service and charging a substantial early termination fee for those dissatisfied with their broadband experience.

• Charging for ancillary support services like Frontier’s “Peace of Mind” that Time Warner claims to offer at no charge.

The latest decision to impose a 5GB usage cap on customers is marketing gold for the cable companies competing with Frontier, perhaps only tempered  by the fact they are also studying whether to apply their own usage caps.

Relentless Marketing: One of the fringe benefits of owning your own video distribution network is the ability to pepper your existing customers with near-constant advertising promoting your own products while denigrating the competition. Cable customers can see an average of three product promotion spots every hour from their cable company trying to convince them to upgrade, attempting to bolster customer loyalty, or simply slashing and burning whatever the telephone company or satellite dish company is offering. Frontier has  a limited ability to counter this.

In areas of significant competition, the battle usually rages in your mailbox, with  a relentless flood of  promotional postcards and mailers, as well as ad buys on local television/radio stations and local newspapers. But cable retains an important advantage because of their ability to insert advertising into basic cable channels, usually at no cost to them.   Frontier doesn’t own their video distribution network – they are reselling someone else’s.

Frontier’s Battle Plan

Welcome to DeLand, Florida: Home of Frontier's Customer Care Center

Frontier’s plan to compete with cable includes  their own marketing by mailbox, and sponsoring local community events and charities to leverage free media and consumer exposure to the company brand to nurture positive feelings  about the company.

The company also places a high priority on attempting to position themselves as “local” players in the market – a company made up of local employees who customers supposedly will interact with on a daily basis. Unfortunately for them, most customers will likely only interact with one of their customer care call centers such as the one  in DeLand, Florida which is localism IF you live, work and play in DeLand.

Frontier also maintains call centers in Henrietta, New York and Burnsville, Minnesota which are designed to replace what used to be local customer service call centers in more than a dozen  Frontier areas.   Some 500 people were hired to answer phones in DeLand for Frontier.   This begs the question how many people lost those jobs in the various local communities where Frontier operates.

Call center employees are on Frontier’s competitive front line, trying to  maintain customer loyalty, convince customers to upgrade their service packages, and above all, remain with Frontier and don’t cancel anything.

They need to maintain the battle, because cable competitors continue to erode their residential business. The company’s deactivations of high speed data services and the ongoing loss of telephone lines are considerably above the company’s own estimates.

One significant bright spot Frontier has maintained is delivering commercial broadband to businesses.

Frontier has a significant advantage in many offices, business parks, and other industrial areas bypassed by their cable competitors. Installation costs to wire a building with coaxial cable often run into the tens of thousands of dollars, an expense borne by the company, the landlord, or a combination of the two. But every business has telephone service, which usually guarantees potential access to DSL service from Frontier. Small and medium sized businesses have become loyal Frontier commercial customers because of low installation costs and a reasonable pricing plan that is typically far more cost effective than what cable is offering. Cable modem commercial access pricing models are usually tailored to a range of product speeds at prices that, when compared with what Frontier can offer, are not competitive.

Frontier’s ability to effectively compete against cable will, in the end, come down to the company’s ability to invest in their network and be able to match what is on offer from the cable operator, and new competitors yet to emerge.    Some former Baby Bell telephone companies like AT&T are investing enormous sums to leverage their existing network (their U-verse product) or starting over from scratch (Verizon’s fiber optic cable to the home FIOS project).

To date, Frontier’s status as a smaller player has meant their investments in these efforts pale in comparison to their larger brethren.   They include experimenting with deploying fiber optic cable to new housing developments and selected mass density buildings (apartments, offices) in Rochester, building community wi-fi networks to create a new market for wireless Internet access, and other investments in their network distribution system.   If they cannot invest enough, fast enough, to keep up, they will become ripe for a merger with a larger player in the market or get wiped out by the competition.

In the meantime,  to quote company chairwoman and CEO Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier intends to “stay the course” for the rest of the year.

We’ll have to wait and see if that’s good enough.

It’s good to know that I can order up video on demand from the comfort of my own living room (transmitted over the woefully over-congested cable system’s network if you believe them).   It’s not comforting to watch  FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell parrot the broadband industry’s propaganda talking points on demand, and in a voluntary guest column in Monday’s Washington Post yet:

Robert M. McDowell, FCC Commissioner

Today, a new challenge is upon us. Pipes are filling rapidly with “peer-to-peer” (“P2P”) file-sharing applications that crowd out other content and slow speeds for millions. Just as Napster  produced an explosion of shared (largely pirated) music files in 1999, today’s P2P applications allow consumers to share movies. P2P providers store movies on users’ home and office computers to avoid building huge “server farms” of giant computers for this bandwidth-intensive data. When consumers download these videos, they call on thousands of computers across the Web to upload each of their small pieces. As a result, some consumers’ “last-mile” connections, especially connections over cable and wireless networks, get clogged. These electronic traffic jams slow the Internet for most consumers, a majority of whom do not use P2P software to watch videos or surf the Web.

At peak times, 5 percent of Internet consumers are using 90 percent of the available bandwidth because of the P2P explosion. This flood of data has created a tyranny by a minority. Slower speeds degrade the quality of the service that consumers have paid for and ultimately diminish America’s competitiveness globally.

While we at the Federal Communications Commission are trying to spur more competitive build-out of vital “last mile” facilities, especially fiber and wireless platforms, this congestion will not be resolved merely by building fatter and faster pipes.

Peer-to-peer traffic has been an issue for the Internet long before the industry decided to call it a “bandwidth crisis.”   And despite McDowell’s pleas for “cooperation,” putting engineers to work  solving these problems instead of  regulation,  the broadband industry that appears before him with regularity has decided that cooperation really means a coordinated public relations campaign, with  the delivery of identical talking points about a bandwidth crisis, a sky is falling plea to Washington to use taxpayer funds to improve the infrastructure formerly developed with private funds, and the imposition of egregious usage caps no matter what else happens to control the bandwidth piggies.

Judicial action by the entertainment industry trade associations have actually reduced a lot of the illegal file trading and peer-to-peer usage.   And just as the company behind BitTorrent launches a whole menu of new, completely legal services, the cable and DSL providers come by and lay waste to such services, as consumers become reluctant to waste their bandwidth allotment on perfectly legitimate content.

Bandwidth saturation is not a problem only seen by the bandwidth providers.   Software developers, professional and otherwise, are constantly refining their applications and protocols to reduce the effects of bandwidth saturation, when your Internet connection effectively freezes up.   More importantly, the boneheads in the entertainment industry have finally realized that the best way to stop illegal distribution of your content is to offer that content yourself, legally with advertiser support.   New services like Hulu and Joost give people exactly what they want – TV shows with limited and tolerable commercial interruptions without the need to fire up Pirate Bay and their favorite torrent application.   It’s also cheaper than suing the very people consuming your content!   That McDowell misses the forest for the trees is not a surprise – he was an early advocate and supporter of Digital Rights Management (DRM), a concept so despised by consumers, its days are numbered on most of the services that embraced it.

McDowell repeats the commonly heard “5%” refrain usually seen near  the top of the industry press releases on the impending “bandwidth crisis.”   But the rest of us are still waiting for independent verification of this claim, and an explanation as to whether or not this traffic is legitimate access to the “unlimited” service every provider has advertised to consumers, or some form of “abuse” already dealt with in existing acceptable use policies, which can be quietly enforced without hiring bandwidth management consultant Count Dracula to suck the life force out of the Internet for everyone else with usage caps.

I’m also hard-pressed to understand exactly how that 5% of traffic poses a major threat to  America’s competitiveness globally, while a 5GB usage cap applied to 100% of one’s customers is shrugged off, if even acknowledged.   One need only ask the  CEO of Netflix: Is the erection of a Berlin Wall of usage caps a positive development for your business plan to deliver legal, high quality video content to subscriber televisions over broadband?

In McDowell’s world view, those consuming large amounts of bandwidth on perfectly legal products will shamefully achieve membership in the “Tyranny of the 5% Club,” abusing the rights of Bob down the street who has a computer to check his Yahoo! e-mail and little else, but now he has to wait because you insisted on watching Harry Potter.   Shame on you.   It’s all your fault.

Is McDowell unaware his doctrine of “cooperation” and “putting engineers on it” already has a solution to the “last mile congestion” problem, itself a logical lapse in the argument arsenal this industry uses to hoodwink us into believing the Internet is on the verge of crashing and burning.

DOCSIS 3.0, an improvement over existing data delivery technology still in place at most cable companies, can  go a long way towards  resolving any neighborhood congestion issues  with  channel bonding, which allows multiple channels to be devoted to upstream and downstream data.   If Time Warner or Comcast doesn’t want to implement the new standard, that’s hardly the fault of the Harry Potter fan down the street.

At the same time they decry the collapse of online modern civilization, somehow these same companies   find plenty of bandwidth to roll out more  video channels you never asked for (but will be used as an excuse for next year’s rate hike),  dozens of video on demand options, Voice Over IP telephone service,  and the increasing number of digital HD channels and switched digital video, which transmits a TV channel to your neighborhood only when someone  chooses to watch.   Data is data.   If there is a bandwidth crisis for cable modems, where is the plea to stop  using too much television,  stop ordering too much pay per view, and get off the phone because we’re out of bandwidth.   I haven’t heard those panic buttons pushed, have you?

If the FCC wants to help spur America’s leadership role in the new Internet economy, it can begin by recognizing America is falling further and further behind other nations, because corporate greed is devolving Internet access domestically into a highly expensive, relatively slow, and usage capped nightmare.   While American website operators will be redeveloping content to get rid of graphics or anything else that might eat too much data, the rest of the world moves forward with innovative broadband applications and content, all made available only to the wealthiest Americans who can afford the price.    For the rest of us, time to get reacquainted with Gopher.