Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Russian Federation has now passed the United States in fiber broadband deployment, with more than 8% of Russians now able to subscribe to fiber Internet service delivered directly to their home or building.  The United States is effectively stalled at 8%, with most Americans getting fiber broadband from Verizon Communications, community-owned providers, or a rural phone company co-op. Those are the findings of DSL Prime.

The most aggressive fiber broadband network upgrades are in South Korea and Japan, where between 40-60 percent of homes subscribe to the service, which often delivers speeds of 100Mbps or greater to residential users. But eastern Europe and Russia are also becoming increasingly important targets for fiber broadband manufacturers and vendors, who are selling the glass-fiber cables and network equipment to private telecommunications companies that used to be state enterprises.

The Baltic state of Lithuania has achieved a leadership role in Europe, with almost 30 percent of homes wired for fiber and growing.

Much of the initial fiber broadband buildout in eastern Europe and Russia is ironically the product of former socialist state planning that existed during the Communist era.  A large number of urban residents in the region live in government-constructed multi-dwelling units, part of larger complexes. That infrastructure reduces the costs of wiring large numbers of potential customers, and some providers deploy fiber to the building and use existing copper phone wiring within to reach individual units.  The short distance of copper has little impact, with speeds commonly ranging from 50-100Mbps.

Much like in the United States, urban areas are much more likely to be targeted for fiber than rural ones, and Russia in particular also depends on robust wireless service in some cities with decrepit wired telecommunications infrastructure.

DSL Prime‘s Dave Burstein argues that fiber upgrades are a good idea in the long run, but appreciates technology improvements in both DSL and cable broadband are helping bring higher speeds to consumers as well, so long as providers continue to invest in upgrading their networks.

As uploading becomes more important, no other current technology delivers as much upstream performance as fiber broadband, which can often equal downstream speeds.

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications has confirmed a Stop the Cap! exclusive report that the company has shown an interest in a licensing arrangement with AT&T to deliver U-verse to Frontier customers in larger markets.

Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications today told investors on a morning conference call that the company likes the U-verse product and is considering deploying it.

“We’ve been evaluating a lot of other alternatives of which U-verse is one of the alternatives,” Wilderotter said. “We think it’s a product that can work, not just on fiber, but it also works on copper as well. So it’s a lot more forgiving in the market.”

Wilderotter claimed the company has no immediate plans to introduce the technology, but Stop the Cap! has obtained documentation that shows the company now refers specifically to “U-verse” in internal communications, is hiring new leadership to oversee the company’s IPTV plans, and has plans to dramatically expand VDSL technology, a prerequisite for deploying AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood platform.

Wilderotter

Frontier Communications has had a difficult time supporting its Verizon-inherited FiOS fiber-to-the-home networks in the Pacific Northwest and Indiana.  The company has found itself unable to compete effectively in the video business because it negotiates programming contracts independently, which locks Frontier out of the volume discounts that other independent providers routinely receive from participating in programming purchasing co-ops.  Frontier lost 4,800 FiOS video customers in the last quarter alone.

Wilderotter said as a result of programming costs, Frontier has no plans to pursue any additional fiber expansion to deliver video programming.

However, a licensing arrangement with AT&T U-verse could open the door to Frontier receiving the same volume discount prices for programming that AT&T already receives as part of its own operations. Because Frontier would have to significantly upgrade its existing, primarily middle-mile fiber network to reduce the amount of copper wiring in its network, the company faces significant capital investment costs wherever it chooses to deploy the more advanced broadband network.

Wilderotter hinted Frontier’s plans for the enhanced technology would be limited to a handful of cities.

“It doesn’t make sense in all of our markets,” she said. “It’s only a handful of markets other than where we have FiOS today. So there’s more to come on that over time. Video is very important. We think over the top video is probably more important than anything else.”

The most likely target for any IPTV expansion would be Frontier’s western New York operation in and around Rochester, where the company currently competes against Time Warner Cable with a mediocre DSL product that can no longer compete with the cable operator’s superior speeds and pricing promotions.  Frontier is steadily losing market share in most of its more-populated service areas.

Other likely targets for expanded broadband include larger cities in Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and California.

Frontier's Broadband Customers (as of 12/31/11)

Chief Operating Officer Daniel McCarthy added Frontier also has plans to improve broadband speeds in most of its service areas.

“We’ve been working pretty steadily to improve the core network around the country,” McCarthy said. “You’ll see us aggressively move forward with sort of VDSL and bonded ADSL2 copper.”

Currently, Frontier only informally offers bonded service to residential customers in very limited areas, notably in parts of the Genesee Valley in western New York.  The company has been marketing an extra line of traditional ADSL service to customers elsewhere who want more broadband capacity, but that requires a second broadband modem and delivers no speed improvements.

Frontier’s time frame to deploy enhanced speeds in within 12-24 months, according the company officials.

In other developments, Frontier Communications customers formerly served by Verizon will likely find themselves choosing new service plans as Frontier prepares to migrate customers away from legacy Verizon service packages.

Wilderotter telegraphed that affected Frontier customers will see some rate increases when the new plans become effective.

“We do think that there is a pretty substantial revenue upside,” Wilderotter said. “We think the net-net is we’ll get customers on the right portfolio of products that will also be revenue enhancing for the company and we’re going to surround the products with the right kind of service experience, both online and off-line. We’re redesigning all of our online product sets for a better customer experience so they can manage their own broadband usage and actually upgrading or changing what they do with broadband themselves, if in fact, they want to do that.”

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is convinced Verizon Communications is abandoning quality landline service for millions of New Yorkers while diverting money and resources to its more profitable cell service Verizon Wireless.

Last week, Schneiderman blasted the state’s largest landline provider for mounting complaints about poor service that now impact 92 percent of its customers, calling deregulation a failure for consumers and businesses in New York.

“Verizon customers deserve the high-quality service they’ve been promised,” Schneiderman told The Associated Press.

The attorney general reports that the number of customers enduring service outages for more than 24 hours has increased, while landline infrastructure — particularly wiring — is allowed to deteriorate.

Schneiderman suspects Verizon is shortchanging landline service as an increasing number of wired phone customers disconnect service, often in favor of Verizon’s more lucrative cell phone service.  The state Public Service Commission (PSC) fined Verizon $400,000 in March for similar concerns, pointing to the company’s intentional workforce reductions lengthening repair windows and creating repair backlogs in some regions.

Schneiderman’s office filed comments with the PSC requesting changes to Verizon’s Service Quality Improvement Plan, which was originally launched in 2010:

At best, New York’s telephone service market is a duopoly, and contrary to theoretical expectations of market controls, the presence of a single competitor has not in fact prevented Verizon from allowing customer service to continue to degrade. Rather than meet its obligations to provide wireline telephone customers with minimally adequate telephone service, Verizon is continuing to drastically reduce its workforce with the result that the company cannot meet its customers’ repair needs in a timely manner.

Verizon’s management has demonstrated that it is unwilling to compete to retain its wireline customer base, and instead is entirely focused on expanding its wireless business affiliate. It is incumbent on the Commission to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that customers receive reliable telephone service with adequate repair performance. Therefore, the Commission should modify Verizon’s service plan to ensure customers receive adequate service quality in the future.

Verizon defended its service in New York pointing out the company has invested $1.5 billion in the state for infrastructure, including its FiOS fiber to the home network.  Verizon spokesman John Bonomo questioned Schneiderman’s claim that 92 percent of Verizon New York customers had poor service, noting 98 percent of its landline customers don’t have service problems.

Schneiderman’s highlighting of a $400,000 service fine imposed by the PSC did not account for unprecedented damage from both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee late last summer, Bonomo added.

But the state’s attorney general notes Verizon’s service problems in New York have been ongoing well before last summer.

Service complaints, charted here from 2008-2011, show a major spike last summer and fall and remain higher than normal.

Schneiderman

“Since at least 2008, Verizon has frequently failed to meet these PSC telephone service standards essential to safe and reliable telephone service,” Schneiderman says. “Even as the number of telephone lines needing to be maintained has dwindled to half those of a decade ago (as customers choose to rely instead on wireless and/or cable telephony), Verizon’s continues to fail to meet the PSC’s service standard.”

Customers on the upper west side of New York City don’t need to be reminded of Verizon’s service failures.  Hundreds of Verizon landline customers in New York’s largest city were left without basic phone service for more than a week, only made worse by the fact Verizon told many of them they’d be without service for at least one additional week while the company worked on repairs.

Phone and Internet service went dead in multiple buildings along Central Park West April 10, but customers wanted to kill when they learned the phone company wanted more than two weeks to get service restored.

“I was like, excuse me, are you serious? Two weeks?” Iram Rivera, a concierge at 262 Central Park West, told DNAinfo.  His building was hard hit by the service outage — 80 percent of the building’s 80 apartments were affected.

“I just don’t get the feeling that there’s much of an appreciation on Verizon’s part that this is a hardship for people,” said Ken Coughlin, who lives on West 87th Street and Central Park West. “There’s no communication, there’s no updates, it’s infuriating.”

The outage only affected traditional landline service and DSL broadband over copper phone wiring. The more modern fiber-optic FiOS network that provides TV, Internet and voice service wasn’t affected, Bonomo said.

Schneiderman notes landline outages have an especially hard impact on small businesses:

In the current recession, the fragile economic condition of many small businesses puts them at risk of financial disaster if they suddenly lose telephone service, and their provider is unable to restore service promptly. Each day that these businesses are without service they lose significant revenues that many simply cannot survive without.

Small businesses depend on functional telephone service to meet the needs of their customers in numerous ways. When customers are unable to reach a business by telephone, they may assume the business is closed and purchase the goods or services they want elsewhere. Restaurants are prevented from giving reservations to prospective customers who call. Many types of businesses depend on working telephone lines for processing credit card charges, and may lose substantial sales by limiting transactions to cash or checks. Professional offices can be prevented from providing medical, legal or accounting services to their clients without working telephone service.

In Schneiderman’s view, the deregulation policies now in place in New York have failed consumers, leaving them with a duopoly of phone providers with insufficient oversight.

For competition to benefit customers with improved service, lower prices, and more innovation, there has to first be a willingness to compete, which is significantly absent from Verizon-New York’s policies and practices.

Rather than robust competition, New York’s telephone market is at best a duopoly, with as many indicators of cooperation between the two providers as robust contest for customers. Furthermore, the actual behavior of consumers in the real world is markedly different from the PSC’s theoretical assumptions about the telephone market.

When a Verizon customer experiences a prolonged service outage or installation delay, the option to switch carriers to a cable provider is of no immediate use. Finally, even if consumers wanted to compare Verizon’s service performance with cable provider alternatives, the lack of available information prevents consumers from making educated choices.

In New York, most customers are served by Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision.  Time Warner Cable and Verizon recently agreed to cross-market the other’s products and services as part of a wireless spectrum transfer.