AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

AT&T has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of selling DSL service at speeds it often never provided to customers.

The case, Robert Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. AT&T and SBC Internet Services, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Internet Services), was filed in 20o9 when AT&T customers learned the company was configuring some customers’ DSL modems at maximum speed rates below those advertised by AT&T.

AT&T has agreed to settle the lawsuit for a maximum of nearly $100 million, or less depending on the total number of claims received nationwide.

The amount customers are entitled to receive will vary depending on how much of an impact AT&T’s speed limiting configuration had on a their service.  The settlement is also retroactive back to April 1, 1995 meaning longtime AT&T DSL customers could be entitled to several hundred dollars in compensation.  For those dissatisfied with the speeds they received from AT&T’s DSL service, their compensation will be limited to a one-time payment of $2.00.

For some others, the settlement will provide more generous compensation.  The law firm that brought the case, Dworken & Bernstein, will receive up to $11 million in compensation and also get to hand out $3.75 million dollars of AT&T’s money to no less than 20 charities.

Some Background

AT&T provides DSL service to the vast majority of its customers.  This technology works over traditional copper wire phone lines.  Unfortunately, that infrastructure was never designed to carry data, but after years of development engineers found a way to make Ma Bell’s wires work for broadband service.  Unfortunately, the service has never been able to provide consistent speeds to every customer.  The further away you are from the phone company’s central office (where your phone line ultimately ends up), the slower the speed your line can support.  Someone a block away from the phone company office can easily achieve the speeds AT&T promised its customers in its marketing.  But if you are a few miles away, chances are you cannot.

For those more distant, or who live in areas with bad phone lines, your DSL modem won’t be able to maintain a consistent connection at the speeds AT&T sold you.  That will cause the modem to reset itself regularly, trying to re-establish an appropriately fast connection.  That can drive customers crazy because your service will often stop working while the modem tries to renegotiate the connection.  Some phone companies stop the constant reconnection battle by configuring the modem to work at a lower, more stable speed that will work with an individual’s phone line.

For instance, here in Rochester Frontier Communications advertises 10Mbps DSL service.  But for me, more than 10,000 feet away from Frontier’s central office for my area, the line simply couldn’t support that speed.  So Frontier locked the modem to deliver just 3.1Mbps, not the 10Mbps the company markets to customers in this area.

While that practice may seem technically smart, it’s obviously not legally smart, as AT&T has discovered.  Even using the traditional weasel words of “up to” when marketing broadband speeds, AT&T felt it was exposed to charges of false advertising and defrauding customers, and decided to settle the case.  It should be noted AT&T strongly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.

AT&T now faces the prospect of paying compensation to every DSL customer it speed limited in this fashion, and has also agreed to stop the practice.

The Details

Who Gets the Settlement? — Potentially any AT&T DSL customer paying for service after March 31, 1994.  This also includes customers of companies acquired by AT&T:

• SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
• Pacific Bell Internet Services
• Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Inc.
• Ameritech Interactive Media Services, Inc.
• SNET Diversified Group, Inc.
• Prodigy Communications Corporation
• Oklahoma Internet Online

Many AT&T customers may have already been notified about this settlement through postcards or other mailers sent by AT&T based on customer records.

What Kind of Settlement Will I Get? — For longstanding AT&T DSL customers, the amount could be substantial, so it’s worth your while to participate, even if you are no longer a customer.  For most everyone else, it’s probably worth $2.00.

There are three types of benefits that will be paid to those who submit valid claims under the settlement once it becomes final. Payments will be made by check or by credits on a customer’s bill.

• Group A Benefit. If AT&T’s Records indicate that AT&T configured the downstream speed of your DSL service, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at a level lower than the Maximum DSL Speed for the plan you purchased, you may be eligible to receive $2.90 for each month your service was so configured.  This could add up to hundreds of dollars.
• Group B Benefit. If you are not eligible for the Group A Benefit and AT&T’s Records show that your DSL service may have performed, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at downstream speeds below the following levels, you may be eligible to receive $2.00 for each such month:
  • 200 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 768 Kbps;
  • 384 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps before October 2008;
  • 769 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps after October 2008;
  • 1.5 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 3.0 Mbps; or
  • 3.0 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 6.0 Mbps.

  Because the settlement provides for monthly credits, you could also receive hundreds of dollars in refunds or service credits, making participation in the settlement worthwhile.

• Group C Benefit. If AT&T’s records do not show that either you fall within Group A or Group B but you nonetheless believe that your DSL service has not performed at satisfactory speeds based upon the plan that you purchased, you may still be eligible for a one-time payment or bill credit of $2.00. In other words, if at anytime you were underwhelmed by AT&T’s DSL speeds, you can file a claim and get two dollars back.

AT&T has also agreed to monitor customers’ DSL speeds over a period of 12 months and if service cannot achieve the speeds promised, the company will either make repairs to boost speed or adjust billing.

For AT&T customers in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas, AT&T’s settlement would replace a similar class action case filed in St. Louis.  Ford and Dunne v. SBC Communications, Inc. and SBC Internet Services, Inc., would have only covered customers after December 31, 2000.

Customers who believe they are entitled to participate in the settlement can get additional information and file an online claim at the DSL Speed Settlement website.

Today’s merger between CenturyTel (soon to be CenturyLink) and Qwest will combine 10 million Qwest customers and 7 million from CenturyTel into a single company serving 37 states in every region of the country except the northeast and much of California and Nevada.  CenturyLink gains access to Qwest’s highly valued portfolio of services sold to business customers and Qwest gets a partner that can help manage its $11.8 billion debt and help grow the last remaining Baby Bell, formerly known as US West, into a national player capable of withstanding ongoing erosion of landline service.

The deal will impact consumers and businesses, and will challenge regulatory authorities to consider the implications of ongoing consolidation in the traditional telephone service marketplace.  It brings implications for broadband service strategies for both companies, which we’ll explore in greater detail.

Breaking Up Was Too Hard to Do, So Let’s Put It Back Together

Ultimately, the genesis of this, and most of the other big telecom deals that we’ve witnessed over the past few years comes from the 1996 Communications Act, which deregulated large parts of the telecommunications industry and triggered a massive wave of consolidation that is still ongoing.  That legislation was the antithesis of the 1984 court ruling which ultimately led to the breakup of AT&T and the Bell System monopoly in 1984.  When President Clinton signed the 1996 bill into law, it allowed much of the Bell System to eventually recombine into two major entities:

• AT&T ultimately pieced itself back together with the acquisitions of:

BellSouth — serving the southeastern United States

Ameritech — serving the upper Midwest

SBC/Southwestern Bell — serving Texas and several southern prairie states

Pacific Telesis — serving California and Nevada

• Verizon became a regional powerhouse by combining:

NYNEX — serving New England and New York

Bell Atlantic — serving mid-Atlantic states

Qwest Tower - Denver

The remaining orphaned Baby Bell was US West, which comprised Mountain Bell serving the Rocky Mountain states, Northwestern Bell which covered the Dakotas, Minnesota, the prairie states not covered by SBC, and Pacific Northwest Bell which managed service for Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho.  US West was subjected to a hostile takeover in 2000 by an upstart telecommunications company that was laying fiber optic cable in the late 1990s alongside the railways its owner, Philip Anschutz, also happened to own.  Qwest assumed control of US West that summer and rechristened it with its own name.  Owned by a Bell outsider, Qwest has always been the company that didn’t quite fit with the rest.

The company gained respect for its enormous fiber backbone that weaves across many American cities, including several in the northeast.  It is best known for its services to business customers.  On the residential side, the story is less impressive.  The company’s customer service record is spotty and the company has accumulated an enormous amount of legacy debt left over from earlier acquisitions.  Despite the company’s repeated efforts to find a partner, it took until today for it to finally find one.  There are several reasons for this:

1. Qwest’s service area is notoriously rural and expensive to serve.  Outside of its corporate headquarters in Denver, the majority of its service area is either mountainous or rural.  Even today, Qwest serves only 10 million residential customers, almost matched by CenturyTel’s own seven million largely rural customers scattered across the country.
2. Qwest’s history has been littered with financial scandals, starting with a series of deals with disgraced Enron from 1999-2001.  That was followed with charges of fraud and insider trading in 2005.
3. Qwest does not own its own wireless division and its previous efforts to deliver television service to customers were largely unsuccessful.  That made Qwest’s ability to withstand erosion in its core business – landline phone service, more difficult.
4. Qwest’s debt is downright frightening for would-be suitors.

Why Does CenturyTel Want to Buy Qwest?

CenturyTel claims such a transaction allows a combined company to become a larger player on the national scene.  By combining Qwest’s good reputation in the business telecommunications sector with combined efforts to deliver broadband products including high speed Internet, the company thinks the combination can’t be beat.  CenturyTel envisions packages of video entertainment, data hosting and managed services, as well as fiber to cell tower connectivity and other high bandwidth services to deliver replacement revenue lost from disconnected landlines.  It also believes it can realize cost savings from the merger and keep the company relevant on a stage dominated by Verizon, AT&T, and a few large cable companies.

But there are other reasons.  For the three super-sized independent phone companies that Americans are growing increasingly familiar with — Frontier Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyTel, their business models depend on their ability to constantly engage in deal-making and acquisitions.  All three companies have built their businesses on investors who see their stocks as “investment grade” financial instruments that dependably return a dividend back to shareholders.  As we’ve seen in countless quarterly financial results conference calls, all three companies are preoccupied answering questions from Wall Street about the all-important dividend.  TV personalities like Jim Cramer has specifically recommended these telecom stocks based, in part, on their dividend payout.  If that dividend dramatically shrunk or stopped, the share price for all three stocks would likely plummet.

One of the side effects of companies dependent on dividend payouts is their constant need to be on the lookout for additional merger and acquisition opportunities.  Here’s how it works.  Let’s say CenturyTel’s debt load and reduced revenue, caused by customer defections to cell phones or cable phone service, delivered a bad fiscal quarter for the company.  Cash flow was down, and company officials simply couldn’t keep the dividend payout at the same level as the previous quarter.  Since many people hold CenturyTel stock specifically because of the dividend, a downward turn in that payout could cause some to sell their shares, driving the stock price downwards.

CenturyTel is still digesting a previous merger with EMBARQ, which led it to rechristen the company CenturyLink

One way around this is to seek out a new merger or acquisition target.  By bringing two companies together, preferably one with a healthy cash flow, suddenly the big picture changes.  Your balance sheet now reflects the combined revenue from both companies, which incidentally makes the percentage of debt versus revenue look a lot healthier.  Cash flow immediately improves, especially if you can slash redundant costs.  Come next quarter, that dividend payout is right back up in healthy territory.

Sometimes companies become so preoccupied with their dividend and corresponding stock price, it can lead them to pay out more in dividends than a company earns in revenue.  While that’s great for investors, it is unsustainable in the long run.

Many critics of telecommunications companies employing this strategy claim it’s evidence that a company is biding time and unwilling to invest in innovation for the future.  Some also believe dividend payouts shortchange customers because they can eventually bleed a company’s ability to invest in service improvements, research and development, and capital investments to maintain their network and expand service.

As consolidation continues, the number of new buyout opportunities begins to shrink, and one shudders to think what happens when there is no one else to buy.  How long is this business model sustainable?

Both CenturyTel and Qwest also recognize the impact of ongoing disconnections from landline service, now averaging 10 percent of their customers a year.  Those departing customers are now relying on their cell phones or alternative calling services like cable company “digital phone” service or broadband-based calling from companies like Vonage or Skype.

The one service they hope can stem customer defections is broadband.  Unfortunately, telephone companies are increasingly losing ground against their cable modem competitors, who have an easier time increasing broadband speeds for customers now seeking online video and other high bandwidth applications.

Of course, one of the benefits of being a “rural phone company” is the fact cable competition is often unlikely.  In fact, some of the lowest erosion rates for landline service are in rural communities where the telephone company is the only game in town.  There is plenty of money still to be made offering high priced slow speed DSL service in communities with no cable competitor and spotty wireless broadband that is often slower and usage-limited.

All three of these big independent players are well aware of this, and maintaining a strong position in relatively slow speed DSL service also protects another revenue stream — Universal Service Fund revenue given to rural providers to equalize telephone rates.  CenturyTel recognizes the increasing likelihood much of that money will be diverted to stimulating broadband expansion, something the phone company is more than willing to do if it means preserving their subsidies.

The new combined Qwest-CenturyTel company hopes the merger can help both survive obsolescence.

For Qwest, a debt reduction may make it possible to spend more to deliver fiber-to-the-curb service, similar to AT&T U-verse.  That could increase broadband speeds and prompt them to reconsider their earlier decision to abandon IPTV in the western half of the country.

CenturyTel can continue to offer traditional DSL service with a more incremental upgrade approach in its more rural service areas, but tap into Qwest’s fiber network to reduce backhaul expenses and potentially pick up new business customers by offering Qwest-branded business services.  Company officials strongly hinted that, at least for now, CenturyTel’s existing customers will continue to find the video portion of their “triple play” package delivered by DirecTV satellite service, so no IPTV for them.

CenturyTel and Qwest's combined local service areas

What Does This Mean for Employees of Both Companies?

Mergers like this always generate great excitement over “cost savings” made possible by the merger.  Much of these savings typically come from employee expenses.  When you hear “cost savings,” think layoffs and pay cuts for all but top management.  Based on past precedent, Qwest employees can anticipate some serious job losses if this transaction closes, especially in the business office.  The combined company will be henceforth known as CenturyLink, with headquarters remaining in Monroe, Louisiana.  That is potentially bad news for Qwest’s employees in Denver.

The transaction is expected to generate annual operating cost savings (which CenturyTel calls “synergies”) of approximately $575 million, which are expected to be fully realized three to five years following closing.  The transaction also is expected to generate annual capital expenditure “synergies” of approximately $50 million within the first two years after close.  That means spending less on infrastructure improvements.

Billing and customer service are traditionally handled by CenturyTel when a company joins the CenturyTel family.  North Carolina customers can attest to that as EMBARQ, an earlier CenturyTel target, finally moves to CenturyTel’s billing system in the coming weeks.

For the sake of pushing the merger through state regulatory agencies, cutbacks in unionized technicians who handle service installations, repairs, and maintain the lines are not expected.  The Communications Workers of America issued a statement today that mildly acknowledged the merger announcement, saying the union “looked forward to serious negotiations with both companies” regarding employment security and assurances of aggressive high speed broadband rollout throughout both companies’ territories.

How the combined CenturyTel-Qwest company stacks up against other independent phone companies. (Q-Qwest, CTL-CenturyTel, FTR-Frontier, WIN-Windstream)

What Does This Mean for Qwest and CenturyTel Customers?

In the short term, nothing.  This merger will take at least a year to complete, assuming regulatory approval in every state where a review is required by state officials.  In 2011, should the merger be approved, Qwest customers can anticipate transition headaches as the Denver-based company winds down operations in favor of CenturyTel.  Billing and customer service will both be impacted.  Long term plans for major projects are likely to be stalled until the merger settles into place.  CenturyTel business customers will eventually see Qwest’s strong business products line become available in many CenturyTel service areas.  Eventually, some larger CenturyTel-served cities may find Qwest’s more advanced DSL service arriving on the scene delivering faster speeds.

Although CenturyTel has hinted it may review whether it’s now large enough to operate its own wireless mobile division, for the near term, expect the partnership to resell Verizon Wireless service to continue.

What is the View of Stop the Cap! on the CenturyTel-Qwest Merger?

Generally speaking, most of the industry consolidation that has been fueled by a deregulatory framework established by the Clinton Administration has not benefited consumers anywhere near the level promised by deregulation advocates.  The three largest independent phone company consolidators — Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyTel are spending more time and resources looking for new acquisitions and schemes to pay out dividends than they are working to enhance service in their respective service areas.  Smaller independent phone companies are deploying fiber to the home networks and answer to the communities where they work and live.  From companies like Frontier, we get Internet Overcharging schemes combined with slow DSL service, tricks and traps from “price protection agreements” that automatically renew, rate increases, and cost cutting.  Windstream plagues some of their customers with extended service outages, and CenturyTel’s promised broadband speeds often don’t deliver.

Unfortunately, bigger is not always better in telecommunications.  While the biggest players like Verizon seek to discard rural American customers, getting one of these three companies instead doesn’t always represent progress.  Our regulators are too often satisfied with basic answers to questions about broadband and service improvements that come with few details and deadlines.  It is just as important to ask what kind of broadband service a company will bring, at what speeds and price, and what usage limits, if any, will accompany the service.

Companies engaged in these mergers hope regulators don’t pin them down to specific service commitments and standards, which could harm the financial windfall these deals bring to a select few.  But they must be the first thing on the table, guaranteeing that customers also get the enjoy the “synergies” these deals are supposed to bring.

Plans by Frontier Communications to clamp down on “excessive usage” of their DSL service and overcharge customers who exceed 100GB of usage per month brought a strong negative reaction from a consumer group, who called Frontier’s limits “divorced from the underlying economics.”

Sources also tell Stop the Cap! the company is actively working on changing language in their Acceptable Use Policy that, as of this morning, is still misleading customers in Minnesota about their service.

A Frontier spokesperson also told an Oregon newspaper Frontier’s acquired FiOS service areas are not guaranteed cap-free service — the company may implement some restrictions there as well.

But first, Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy no longer matches reality for customers in Mound, Minnesota who are getting notified that their service is at risk of being shut off if they don’t agree to new, dramatically-higher priced service plans.  But such e-mails run contrary to several sections in the company’s own published policies:

Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy (Last Update: December 23, 2008) (PDF Archived 4/15)

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier’s Supplementary “5GB” Addendum to their Acceptable Use Policy (PDF Archived 4/15)

Frontier has not implemented tiered usage plans and will continue to evaluate if and when they would be necessary. If and when Frontier implements a tiered usage plan pricing and usage information will be communicated to all High-Speed customers.

Does Frontier plan to limit my use of the Internet?
Frontier is providing (NOT LIMITING) all customers with a minimum of 5GB of usage on a monthly basis. The Company has made no decision at this time to charge for additional usage but wants to start to educate customers about their usage.

If I hit 5GB will my service be interrupted?
No. Your service will not be interrupted at 5Gb. You will continue to use our High Speed Internet service without disruption.

How will I know how many Gigabytes I am using?
Sometime in the future, Frontier will provide to all customers visibility as to what your usage is on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. We will also provide a the ability to estimate bandwidth usage for different types of activities – like streaming video downloads or file sharing. These tools will give our customers the ability to make informed decisions about broadband usage consumption.

Tell that to the customers in Mound who have 14 or fewer days and counting to either pay extortionist broadband pricing, curtail their usage, or go elsewhere for service (if they can).

It’s no surprise some customers in Mound are outraged when receiving the company’s e-mailed notification about paying higher prices for usage because it runs completely contrary to the published policies of Frontier’s broadband service.

That’s just one more mistake in a series of mistakes Frontier has made in marketing its broadband service, especially in areas where consumers can take their business elsewhere and not have to worry about exceeding Frontier’s minuscule usage allowance.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost quotes a statement released by Free Press research director S. Derek Turner: “While there may be a place for discussing reasonable usage-based billing, the scheme Frontier is testing is completely divorced from the underlying economics. Even worse than their price-gouging is Frontier’s assertion that a mere 5 gigabytes per month is a ‘reasonable’ amount of usage when just last month the National Broadband Plan reported that average Internet users with a fixed connection consume 9 gigabytes of data per month.”

Davis also managed to get a Frontier spokesperson on the record about the debacle, telling MediaPost, “the company is only trying to prevent some exceptionally heavy bandwidth users from degrading service for others on the network. She also says that people who received the letters were given an option of decreasing their bandwidth consumption or switching to a different, higher-priced plan.”

Yet the concept of DSL customers degrading the broadband experience of other customers on the network is itself controversial, as DSL providers have always emphasized they do not suffer from slowdowns like shared networks used by cable broadband providers.  While heavy consumption can theoretically congest “middle mile” networks that serve regional areas or connect telephone company switching offices, those congestion issues are not difficult to address when companies use fiber connections to connect them, as Frontier frequently does.  Indeed, Frontier is far more likely to suffer congestion issues when millions of former Verizon customers are piled on Frontier’s network.

Nowhere in Frontier’s e-mail does it tell customers they can reduce usage to retain service.  It only says “if you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.”  Mound residents are faced with the prospect of immediately reducing usage from 100GB to just 5GB to stay within Frontier’s terms and conditions.  Under those conditions, they could do better with dial-up.

Meanwhile, those soon-to-be-discarded Verizon customers facing a transition to Frontier Communications may soon find themselves potentially impacted by some sort of usage limit as well, which could also apply to the areas served by FiOS.

Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian talked with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby about Frontier’s plans:

I talked this afternoon with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby, who said there won’t be tight bandwidth restrictions after Frontier acquires FiOS — but he indicated that there may be some restrictions.

Currently, Frontier’s user agreement sets a nominal 5 gigabyte cap on monthly bandwidth usage.

“You know, I know and everyone knows that’s a very low number,” Crosby said. “We don’t hold people to that.”

The letters that went out in Minnesota went to a small group of very heavy bandwidth users in one community, Crosby told me. It’s not meant to reflect a broader policy.

As Frontier prepares to take over Verizon’s operations in Oregon and other states — Crosby says the deal is on track and likely to close in late June or early July — Frontier is reviewing its Internet use policies.

I pointed out Comcast’s bandwidth cap, and told Crosby that it seems likely his company will do something similar. He left that possibility open, but said any Internet limits are still under discussion.

“I don’t know what that limit will be,” he said. “The one thing I do know is we don’t want to impact our customers.”

St0p the Cap! responds:

• This is the first time Frontier has hinted that usage limits could eventually apply to the FiOS fiber-to-the-home service it is acquiring from Verizon, a network constructed to manage 21st century broadband traffic Frontier now also seems willing to limit;
• Frontier does hold people to the 5GB usage cap when they are in violation of it, using it as an excuse to expose customers to far-higher-priced service plans or service disconnection.  If Frontier isn’t serious about it, why retain the language in customer agreements?
• If Frontier’s Mound e-mail notifications do not reflect a broader policy, than the only customers who will see a change in the Acceptable Use Policy will be those in the Mound, Minnesota area.  If customers elsewhere see a change, it -does- reflect a broader policy after all.
• As part of Frontier’s “review of Internet use policies,” the company should not defray expenses surrounding the Frontier-Verizon deal by dumping them on broadband customers with outrageously punitive pricing plans.
• As for not wanting to impact customers, our response is “too late.”  Frontier’s original introduction of the 5GB usage allowance in the summer of 2008 impacted customers far and wide, and for its largest service area — Rochester, NY, gave Time Warner Cable happy hunting grounds to experiment with a usage cap of their own.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost offers some food for thought:

Frontier’s letters could well trigger regulatory or judicial scrutiny, especially given the seeming disconnect between the company’s acceptable use policy and its recent actions.

Of course, the underlying problem is the lack of competition. If consumers had more options for broadband providers, a company that threatened to disconnect its customers, or charge $99 or $250 a month for broadband service, might quickly find itself dealing with more pressing problems than public criticism.

The 'Prince of Wales,' one of Inter-Island Ferry Authority's boats that connect the island to the mainland (Courtesy: Inter-Island Ferry Authority)

Providing broadband to 6,000 residents of Prince Wales Island, located along the western strip of Alaska that borders on British Columbia, Canada is the ultimate challenge.  Parts of the island don’t even have access to traditional landline phone service, relying instead on fixed wireless service.

Residents have complained loudly about the poor quality of phone service on the island for years, particularly when it is provided to the 1,000 residents of Klawock, Craig, and several adjacent communities served by Alaska Communications Systems (ACS).  Ten percent of ACS customers are stuck with fixed wireless, which guarantees no Internet access, and sub-standard phone service.  What perturbs many of them is the fact another phone company’s landlines are within the sight of their homes and communities, but they can’t get service from that company.  Those lines are owned by ACS competitor Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), an employee owned utility that serves many areas ACS doesn’t.

Friends and neighbors served by AP&T are happy with their telephone service.  Residents served by ACS are not.

The Alaska Dispatch tells the story:

Every three months Ron Fitch drives five miles down a state highway so he can use a friend’s telephone to monitor his pacemaker.

Fitch, who lives on Price of Wales Island, has a phone at home, but he gets his service via fixed wireless, which is similar to a cell phone signal but is routed through a box mounted in the house. Since you can’t recalibrate a pacemaker over a wireless signal, Fitch makes the drive four times a year.

“Times have changed, and it doesn’t seem right that we can’t get Internet or a fax or anything over our phones,” said Eric Packer, a builder who lives outside Klawock. “It’s like living in the dark ages.”

ACS customers on the island have been complaining about their phone service for years, and for some the frustration is sharpened by the view of lines — owned by ACS competitor Alaska Power and Telephone — running near their homes. Two years ago the Regulatory Commission of Alaska opened an investigation into ACS service on the island, citing numerous customer complaints and a request from Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

With all of the negative press focused on ACS, the company relented, telling the Regulatory Commission it will offer to connect those fixed wireless customers to landline service, but will only pay for up to 1,000 feet of wiring between the nearest ACS junction box and the customer’s home.  ACS will bill customers the balance of costs beyond 1,000 feet if a customer insists on landline service.

ACS is a major recipient of universal service funds which subsidizes phone service in rural areas to keep it affordable.  ACS receives about $4 million a year.  ACS fixed wireless customers on the island pay about $26 a month.

ACS customers perennially without broadband have complained to the Regulatory Commission, according to the Dispatch, suggesting it hurts the island’s economic development.  Some customers have managed to switch to cell phone service and dropped landline/fixed wireless service, and a select few are trying to rely on satellite Internet service, which customers characterize as expensive and slow.

Pricing for landline DSL service from either ACS or AP&T is itself slow and expensive, and AP&T service is usage limited:

ACS promotes the fact their service is unlimited.  Includes local and long distance telephone service.  One year contract term required.  Pricing may be higher in rural areas not specified on the ACS website.

The 1Mbps service tier is currently available in select areas dependent upon local infrastructure.  Each additional gigabyte of usage is pro-rated at $5.00/GB.  AP&T provides wireless broadband in selected rural areas.