Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them.

This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment of some $4 million dollars in its broadband networks in Charles Town and Princeton, West Virginia.  But the best part was the claim the upgrades would “offer customers fast broadband speeds and near-unlimited bandwidth capacity.”

In Princeton, 44 miles of fiber-optic cable will connect all Frontier High-Speed Internet (HSI) equipment to the exchange`s main switch, and 37 additional miles of fiber cable are being installed in the Charles Town exchange. These upgrades will allow Residential HSI speeds of up to 6 Meg and Business HSI speeds of up to 12 Meg. The upgrades will allow provisioning of Metro Ethernet service of up to 100 Meg, resulting in very high data speeds for private networks among multiple business locations.

These upgrades are all well and good, and are perhaps more than urban-focused Verizon was willing to do in the state, but before West Virginians get too excited by the words “fiber cable” and “near-unlimited bandwidth capacity,” it might be wise to consider the implications of transferring an entire state’s telephone business to a company that still insists on defining an “appropriate amount of usage” on that near-unlimited network at a piddly 5GB per month.

The company also promoted their “computer giveaway” program:

Recognizing that the lack of a personal computer is a barrier for many families, since 2006 Frontier has provided more than 10,000 free computers to qualifying customers in West Virginia. A large percentage of the computers went to first time computer households, who also benefited from free on-site installation.

To the uninitiated, that may suggest a benevolent phone company handing out free computers to the needy with no strings attached.  In fact, this was a Frontier customer acquisition promotion.  Customers signing up for a bundle of telephone and broadband and/or satellite service could qualify for a free basic Dell Netbook (valued at under $400), if they are in good standing with the company, agree to a “price protection agreement” holding them to the company for two years (or facing a nasty early termination fee running several hundred dollars), and also pay a handling fee:

Customer pays handling charges and taxes totaling $45. Customers must subscribe to a new package of Frontier residential local service with features, Unlimited Nationwide or Statewide Long Distance voice-calling and qualifying High-Speed Internet service. Requires a two-year Price Protection Plan on Frontier services (excludes satellite TV) with a $300 early termination fee. Offer available while supplies last. Frontier reserves the right to substitute a comparable Mini Laptop. Other offers available for existing High-Speed Internet customers. Applicable taxes and surcharges apply. Electronic or other written contract signature for Frontier services is required. Some Frontier services are subject to availability. Installation charges may apply. Unlimited U.S. Long Distance minutes are for residential voice usage and exclude 900, international, directory assistance and dial-up Internet calls.

For a whole lot of West Virginia, broadband service means one thing – DSL from the phone company.  Satellite broadband is costly, capped, and has terrible customer satisfaction ratings.  Cable television is a dream for significant parts of the mountainous state.  Do West Virginians want to risk their broadband future on a company that insists on an Acceptable Use Policy with a 5GB usage limit in it?

Residents of Rochester, New York know Frontier Communications all too well.  They’ve been our local telephone company since being absorbed by Citizens Communications after the colossal downfall of Global Crossing, which took ownership of the formerly independent Rochester Telephone Corporation.

Don’t let dreams of fiber dance too much in your head.  Frontier routinely installs fiber, but only between their central offices and remote equipment that helps reduce the distance between telephone switch equipment and the copper wiring out on the telephone poles.  It does help provide the potential of speed increases for DSL service by reducing the length of copper wire DSL travels on, but by no means should imply West Virginia will see fiber to the home in their near future.

If Frontier Communications lacks the means and the will to wire New York’s second largest economy and third largest metropolitan area with more than 1,000,000 residents with fiber to the home, don’t think for a moment they’re going to be any hurry to light up the state of West Virginia.

Indeed, for many residents of the Flower City, the bloom is well off Frontier’s rose, trapping this community in a broadband backwater with a telephone company unwilling and/or unable to provide the kind of 21st century broadband service that is presently being provided in several other upstate cities as Verizon installs its FiOS fiber network.  For Rochester, and for too many other cities, the broadband superhighway from the phone company has little more than tumbleweeds blowing across.

This site was founded last year when Frontier introduced its 5GB usage cap, and we coordinated a consumer response which forced the company to pull back from its enforcement.  But the threat still looms over the heads of their customers from coast to coast as long as it remains a part of their Acceptable Use Policy.

The time has come for Frontier to banish the 5GB language from its Acceptable Use Policy once and for all and stop toying with Internet Overcharging schemes altogether, especially as it seeks to bring the threat of those schemes to millions of Americans that may find their only realistic broadband option coming from this provider.  Otherwise, it’s time for consumers to get on the phones and tell their elected officials and public utility commissions how they feel about getting broadband service from a phone company that tells them:

Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

“Comcast isn’t looking to make a $50 billion purchase.”

Stephen Burke, Comcast Chief Operating Officer

Now that Comcast has been freed from that pesky provision of the 1992 Cable Act, authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to set a maximum size for large corporate cable operators, the nation’s largest cable operator is now considering breaking out the checkbook and going on a shopping spree.  That is likely to spark a merger and acquisition frenzy among several players in the industry which could dramatically reduce America’s choices for telecommunications services.

Bloomberg News this evening quotes Stephen Burke, Comcast’s Chief Operating Officer, that it will consider buying other cable operators at a “good price.”

“If there is a way to acquire cable systems for what we consider a good price, ones that are well managed, we would certainly look at whatever is out three,” Burke, 51, said today at a Bank of America Corp. conference in Marina del Rey, California. Still, the company “isn’t waking up every morning” evaluating how it can become bigger, he said.

The Wall Street Journal calls the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, freeing Comcast from its limits, the start of “the coming cable consolidation.”

Martin Peers, writing for the Journal, said that when the dust settles, phone companies might own satellite TV providers and cable companies might end up consolidating into one or two super-sized providers blanketing the entire country with service.

Consumers would be left with a handful of providers for all of their communications needs, from telephone to broadband to television, if the courts open the door with more decisions favorable to the industry and antitrust reviews aren’t aggressively undertaken.

Starting with Comcast, Burke thinks Comcast’s first priority might be to buy up more programmers.  Comcast already has ownership interests in several cable networks, and Burke feels “content channels are good businesses, and we wouldn’t be doing out job if we didn’t try to figure out a way to get bigger in those businesses.”

With Comcast and Cablevision joining forces to sue their way out of the cable network exclusivity ban, owning and controlling those networks, and what competitors get access to their programming, could be an important asset in an ever-consolidating marketplace.  Imagine if U-verse or FiOS was denied access to ESPN, The Weather Channel, CNN, and other popular cable channels.  Would subscribers be compelled to switch providers if they could no longer get the channels they want to watch?

The Journal ponders the coming consolidation frenzy:

Comcast and other cable companies will probably need to consider more consolidation — if not now, in the next couple of years. They are still losing market share to satellite and phone rivals. Comcast lost nearly 700,000 basic subscribers in the year to June. Time Warner Cable has fallen to No. 4 among TV providers, behind satellite firms DirecTV Group and Dish Network.

Cable operators are more than offsetting video losses by selling phone and Internet-access. Eventually, though, those opportunities will peter out. And phone companies’ competitive threat in video could be enhanced by a combination with satellite TV.

The newspaper speculates about this kind of marketplace in the near future:

Today's pay television marketplace

AT&T DirecTV: The Journal ponders an AT&T buyout of DirecTV resulting in a reduction in AT&T’s investment in U-verse, pushing consumers to its newly-acquired satellite service and redirecting investment into the overburdened AT&T mobile phone network.

VerizonDISH: A Verizon buyout of DISH would allow the phone company to push more rural customers to DISH satellite service, and reduce the expense of wiring all but the nation’s largest cities with fiber optics.

Comcast (formerly Comcast & Time Warner Cable, if not others): A supersized Comcast absorbs Time Warner Cable and becomes an even more dominant cable operator, leveraging its investment in Clearwire to offer a  wireless data option to stay competitive with the mobile phone companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That would leave most Americans with just three choices for telecommunications services capable of bundling multiple products together.  Wouldn’t such a merger-mania trigger antitrust implications and government review?

The Journal doesn’t think so:

Would such a deal pass antitrust scrutiny, even absent the ownership cap? There is a good chance, say several antitrust lawyers. A major focus of antitrust law is whether a merger reduces competition in a way that could raise prices or otherwise hurt consumers. As cable operators generally don’t compete with one another, merging wouldn’t cut competition.

But what kind of benefits would be found for consumers?  If one resides in a city too small to be judged worthy of fiber optic deployment, consumers could be told to get the satellite television service and live with the copper wiring the phone companies provide today.

Cable operators would be in a fine position to compete, as they traditionally have, against satellite television because of the technical limitations of satellite service, ranging from consumer objections to having a dish on their home, to a limit on the number of sets that can be wired, to the inability to get a clear view of the satellite because of nearby trees or other obstructions.

Who pays for the debt likely incurred from a bidding war during a merger frenzy?  Guess.

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television

It’s bad enough when service providers overcharge us for service we use, but it’s even worse when they bill you for services you don’t.

Verizon Wireless may be looking at millions of dollars in refunds for customers who got dinged $1.99 monthly fees on their Verizon Wireless bills labeled mysteriously as “Usage Charges, Data.”

Two dollars on a phone bill that typically exceeds $50 or more is likely to be missed by a lot of consumers skimming the fees, surcharges, taxes and other impenetrable charges that get tacked on to your monthly service.  Even worse, since Verizon charges a fee for a printed bill, most customers never even bother to look at the electronic online bill beyond the general e-mail notification received each month letting you know it has arrived.  But some Cleveland-area residents did bother to take a look, and they didn’t like what they saw:

The Money Matters column chronicled the writer’s six-month ordeal with $1.99-per-month data charges and the possible causes given by Verizon’s customer service workers. All, it turned out, were wrong or only partly true.

More than 400 Plain Dealer readers responded to the newspaper with complaints similar to the ones in the column. The readers collectively pay for more than 1,000 phone lines. In addition, calls to customer service and visits to Verizon stores increased noticeably after the column.

Take a look at your bill

Where to look for the data usage charge: The first page of your bill should have a section labeled “Quick Bill Summary.” Look under the summary for “Usage Charges, Data.”

What to do if you spot an error
Call Verizon customer service (800-922-0204) or visit a full-service store to investigate the charges and ask for a credit.

If Internet usage is the issue, ask technical support to track down the Web sites visited, and dates and times.

If premium text messages are the issue, determine whether you have applications that are downloading information automatically. Go to your “menu,” then click “media center.” You may need Verizon’s help determining what applications cost money.

You can block features you don’t use and don’t want to be charged for by accident, such as Internet access or the weather forecast. Access your account online, call customer service or visit a store.

At a minimum, thousands of customers apparently have been charged $1.99 per month for Internet “data usage” even though they had not tried to go online. In some cases, customers were charged when their phones were off, the batteries were dead, the phone’s Internet access was blocked or even when the phones didn’t have the software to go online.

One clue might be customers who inadvertently accessed the Internet browser just for a few seconds by mistakenly pressing the wrong keys on the phone.  Even a momentary activation of a Mobile Web service could generate the access fee, even if you hit the “end” key on the phone within seconds.

Frustrated customers catching the charge on their bills each month then have to pursue the ordeal of contacting customer service to have the charge removed, and frequently run into misinformed customer service representatives who argue the fees are valid for services customers don’t even have, or are offered free of charge by Verizon Wireless.

Some readers say they’ve been battling the charges for more than a year. Most said they’re tired of calling Verizon month after month. Some were irate because they’d punished their children because they wrongly believed the kids had gone on the Internet. One reader said his mom’s phone was charged for Internet access – weeks after the mother had died and her phone sat idle in her empty home.

Karen Fullerman of Twinsburg is typical of customers who complained to The Plain Dealer last week.

Fullerman has three phone lines; two are for her 23-year-old twin daughters. Fullerman has been charged $1.99 on one or two phones every month. And sometimes there’s an extra $9.99 download fee. Fullerman, who recently lost her job, said every dollar counts these days.

She insists that none of the three has gone on the Internet. And she said Verizon has told her repeatedly that the company has blocked the phones’ ability to go on the Internet – yet the Internet charges continue.

The same is true for James Grega of Brunswick, whose four phone lines with Verizon have been getting charged sporadically for about four months.

“The phones are still being charged after I had them blocked,” Grega said. “Their assurance that the $1.99 charges would stop has been a joke.”

Now, some customers who have repeatedly been credited for erroneous charges are being denied for future requests, and that is partly what prompted The Plain Dealer to get involved.

Verizon Wireless claims to be investigating the problem and promises customers full credit, assuming they specifically request it.  Therein lies a major problem for consumers, one that benefits providers with billing problems.  Consumers frustrated by long hold times or the aggravation of requesting credits may forego doing so, providing a windfall for the service provider based on a billing error.

Roger Tang, a regional vice president for Verizon, told The Plain Dealer it would resolve accidental web browser access when consumers hit the wrong buttons on their phones.  The default home page for most Verizon phones is Verizon’s own web page.  The company will make visits to that page exempt from Internet time charges “as soon as possible.”

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMAR Baltimore Verizon Wireless 199 Mystery Fee 9-8-09.flv[/flv]

WMAR Baltimore ran a Scam Alert on Verizon Wireless Overcharging (9/8/09)

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.