Areas in yellow are Wireless ISP projects seeking funding to expand. Most of them are in the panhandle region of northern W.V. The areas shaded in purple are grant proposals to promote the benefit of subscribing to broadband service.

Frontier Communications has forced a West Virginia broadband improvement council to temporarily suspend plans to distribute $4 million in funding to independent ISPs planning to expand service in rural areas after a company official objected that the funding would duplicate broadband service Frontier already provides itself or through its satellite broadband partner.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council ended up postponing its broadband awards program after Frontier Communications executive Dana Waldo, who serves on the Council, objected to the money being distributed.

Waldo noted state code prohibits the board from awarding grants for projects in areas already provided service.

That state code, passed by the West Virginia legislature in 2008, came courtesy of a coalition of phone, cable, and broadband equipment companies like Cisco working with then-Gov. Joe Manchin to push the broadband bill into law. Verizon was the most influential supporter, serving as West Virginia’s largest telecommunications company before selling its landline network to Frontier.

The code Waldo refers to:

The council shall exercise its powers and authority to bring broadband service to those areas without broadband service. The council may not duplicate or displace broadband service in areas already served or where private industry feasibly can be expected to offer services in the reasonably foreseeable future. In no event may projects or actions undertaken pursuant to this article be used to finance or support broadband or other services in competition with private industry.

The Council relied on broadband map data provided by Frontier Communications to help score and rank projects that appeared to be outside of Frontier’s broadband service area. When the project rankings were first announced in September, Frontier executives immediately claimed their map data was outdated and subsequently updated map data voluntarily supplied by Frontier, not independently verified, showed many of the high-ranking independent projects would compete with Frontier’s DSL service, disqualifying them from further consideration.

Waldo

Waldo declared he was not comfortable with the broadband awards because “many of those areas are currently served or can be reasonably served by Frontier.”

State officials were hopeful a new list of qualifying projects could be developed in accordance with the latest Frontier map data and were scheduled to be announced on Dec. 12.

But Waldo noted that Frontier could end up unhappy with many of those projects as well.

He noted Frontier technically already offers every household in West Virginia broadband access through its new partnership with a satellite Internet Service Provider. Frontier began offering rural customers satellite Internet service earlier this year.

“If our mission is to increase broadband access, we need to consider satellite,” he told the Council. “We have hundreds of [satellite] customers.”

While Frontier considers satellite broadband a solution in the most rural areas where it is unlikely to provide service anytime soon, it could prove even more valuable as a weapon against potential competition in a state that prohibits public funding of competing services.

The biggest losers should Frontier prove its case are rural Wireless Internet Service Providers, who have requested $3.1 million in grants to build antenna towers. An additional $923,000 was expected to fund programs that promote the benefits of signing up for high speed service. Frontier has ties to four of those projects, and has stated no objections to them.

Frontier has also not objected to the much larger $126 million federal grant to construct an institutional statewide fiber broadband network. Frontier is the primary vendor that will sell access on that network.

FairPoint Communications will introduce DSL service across 33 New Hampshire communities that either have incomplete coverage or no broadband at all.

At least 4,000 homes and businesses will gain access with financial assistance from the FCC’s Connect America fund.

FairPoint says it has invested $189 million in network infrastructure since purchasing northern New England landlines from Verizon Communications. That investment has targeted broadband improvements through fiber middle mile networks and extended DSL service with Ethernet and DSLAM equipment. The last mile installation to individual homes and businesses requires a suitable return on investment. If a provider cannot recoup expenses within a few years, those failing the test will not receive service. The Connect America Fund covers some of the investment costs, bringing rural areas closer to the return expectations providers have.

FairPoint earlier promised to reach 95 percent of New Hampshire with broadband service, with similar goals in Maine and Vermont.

FairPoint customers in larger northern New England communities can also expect eventual speed upgrades as the company continues to work on deploying next generation DSL technology.

Cable competition in the region is spotty, with Comcast and Time Warner Cable providing the bulk of service, mostly in the largest communities.

The communities slated to see DSL service (or extended service into previously unserved areas) include:

Alexandria, Barrington, Bartlett, Canterbury, Concord, Conway, Cornish, Croydon, Dorchester, Dover, Durham, Effingham, Epping, Epsom, Franklin, Gilmanton, Goffstown, Grantham, Jackson, Lee, Litchfield, Manchester, Meredith, New Hampton, Nottingham, Orange, Ossipee, Pembroke, Richmond, Sanbornton, Strafford, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro.

CenturyLink CEO Glenn Post does not think much about AT&T’s plans to shift its most rural landline customers to wireless in its efforts to decommission traditional landline service.

“From a regulatory standpoint, that could be a tough go,” Post explained to Wall Street investors on a conference call last week. “There may be some areas that will have better service with wireless in some ways. As far as a competitive threat, we don’t see that being a real issue for us because just the bandwidth requirements and the limited wireless access or capability in a lot of areas.”

CenturyLink, one of four large independent phone companies and owner of former Baby Bell Qwest, is doubling down on its wired infrastructure to reach customers. The company recently announced Phoenix would be the latest city to get its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service Prism TV — the first legacy Qwest market to get IPTV service from CenturyLink. The service soft-launches in Phoenix this month, with a second city in the region or Pacific Northwest slated to get Prism sometime next year.

The company has spent much of 2012 investing in broadband, managed hosting and cloud computing for business customers, and fiber expansion to reach more than 15,000 cell towers across CenturyLink’s national service area, depicted in green on the accompanying map.

But CenturyLink executives stress their investments are “strategic” — made in areas that are most likely to deliver quick returns for the company.

While CenturyLink spends money to secure video franchising agreements in metro Denver and Colorado Springs for Prism TV service, it is moving at “a snail’s pace” to deliver broadband service in northeastern North Carolina’s Northampton County. County officials there anticipate CenturyLink will take years to deploy basic DSL service to communities outside and around Conway and Gaston.

The broadband problem in income-challenged parts of North Carolina illustrate the conundrum for county officials, who have to advocate for broadband improvement while combating misleading broadband maps that suggest access is not a problem in the state.

Donna Sullivan with the Department of Commerce notes that broadband maps in states like North Carolina have a census block granularity which does not always reveal the true picture of broadband availability.

“That means if one household in that census block can receive broadband services, the entire census block is considered covered—even though there very well may be households who cannot receive broadband to that location,” she told the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald.

Northampton County, N.C.

CenturyLink is in no hurry to expand broadband to the 1,921 households in the county of 22,000 who cannot buy broadband service at any price.

Derek Kelly, a CenturyLink spokesman, said the company is working to expand broadband services in the region, but noted the costs to lay down a fiber network to help reach the unserved is “one of the largest costs.”

That cost is much less of a problem if the customer at the end of the line happens to be a wireless company like Verizon or AT&T.

Company officials admit they are spending enormous sums “investing in fiber builds to as many [cell] towers in our service area as economically feasible.” In the third quarter alone, more than 1,000 cell towers received fiber upgrades for a total of 3,300 so far this year. The company hopes to reach 4,000-4,500 cell towers by New Year’s Eve.

The reason why CenturyLink chases wireless business while allowing rural and income-challenged service areas to go without broadband is a simple matter of economics. Cell phone companies sign lucrative, multi-year contracts for fiber connectivity to cell towers to support forthcoming 4G service. In contrast, CenturyLink was surprised to find an astounding 94 percent of families with children in Northampton are qualified for the company’s special Lifeline Program which delivers slow speed, discounted broadband service for families on public assistance.

Post

For CenturyLink’s more urban and prosperous service areas, the news for broadband service improvements is better.

As CenturyLink continues to extend its middle mile fiber network, broadband speeds are gradually improving.

Over 70 percent of CenturyLink customers can receive at least 6Mbps DSL service, more than 57% can receive at least 10Mbps and 29% can access the Internet at 20Mbps speeds or better, according to Post.

But the more urban and prosperous a service area is, the greater the chance a cable competitor has successfully poached many of CenturyLink’s DSL customers with the promise of better speed.

Post said he recognizes the company must do better to remain competitive.

“We’re shooting for 20-25Mbps for a very large percentage of our areas,” Post said. “But with [pair] bonding, we can virtually double the broadband capacity and speeds in our markets. We’re already doing bonding in a number of markets today. So where we have 20Mbps, we could have 40Mbps.”

CenturyLink’s fiber to the neighborhood network, essential where it plans to roll out Prism TV, can also support faster broadband speeds if a customer wants broadband alone and does not care about television service.

Nationwide, the company added 10,000 Prism TV subscribers in the third quarter and has a total customer base of around 104,000 subscribers. But that represents a penetration rate of just over 10%, hardly noticed by still-dominant cable operators.

CenturyLink executives were asked to comment on AT&T’s strategic plan to transform their landline network announced last week in New York. Post found little in common between CenturyLink and AT&T’s vision for the future and does not think the company has to respond to AT&T’s attempt to redefine rural America as wireless territory.

“We don’t see that as a major investment for us or a major risk at this point.”

AT&T: Landlines may be a thing of the past in rural areas served by AT&T.

AT&T customers in the company’s rural service areas are likely to see wireless broadband as AT&T’s answer to rural America’s demand for Internet access.

Speaking on AT&T’s quarterly results conference call, Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets yesterday previewed the forthcoming investor and analyst conference scheduled for Nov. 7 to discuss AT&T’s future in the rural landline business.

“I think there is a place in some rural areas where I see the outline, that [wireless] could serve as an alternative to wired broadband,” de la Vega told a Wall Street analyst from Goldman Sachs. “We are going to be talking to you about that on November 7, giving you more details about our thinking of how we can use this technology. And, quite frankly, the customer reception to the technology [is good] in terms of their willingness to pay for great quality data in large, large amounts.”

Some analysts anticipate AT&T is also likely to announce some additional expansion of the company’s U-verse platform to an additional 3-5 million customers that were not previously scheduled to see the service in their area. The build-out would take 12-18 months to complete. But that still leaves up to 15 million rural AT&T customers with either no broadband or the company’s slower DSL service. For many of them, AT&T sees wireless Internet in their future.

At the core of AT&T’s wireless broadband solution is the company’s LTE 4G network. AT&T is stressing it intends to roll out LTE upgrades in both rural and urban areas, unlike its nearest rival Verizon Wireless, which has prioritized upgrades on urban areas. AT&T claims its current network performs at speeds of 5-12Mbps — faster in low demand areas. In areas where AT&T has not bothered to provide DSL service, the company has repeatedly stressed it believes wireless delivers the best bang for the buck.

Unfortunately for rural consumers, access is not likely to come cheap, congestion will reduce overall speeds, and plans will include usage caps that are draconian in comparison to the company’s wired broadband services.

AT&T is a strong believer is monetizing data usage by gradually eliminating the unlimited data plan the company started at the dawn of the smartphone era. The future at AT&T is usage-based pricing.

“I think that more customers we have on usage-based plans the better we are,” de la Vega told investors.

In the last quarter alone, AT&T earned $6.6 billion from its wireless data service — up more than $1 billion (18%) compared to the same quarter last year.  AT&T now takes $26 billion annually to the bank just from its wireless data earnings.

A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. In this final part, a look at Frontier’s broadband service and how the company is still struggling to integrate ex-Verizon customers now a part of the Frontier family. “It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart.” 

Frontier recently began marketing faster Internet speeds to many of their customers who can finally sign up for something roughly equivalent to today’s standard speeds from cable operators. But even in its more advanced forms of bonded DSL, ADSL2+, and VDSL, all remain distance-sensitive. Customers may simply never get the speeds they were promised if they live too far from the phone company’s central office.

Frontier wants to see the end of speed test results like this.

We recently started pushing our premium speed broadband to customers who qualify for our new speeds, which run up to 25Mbps for residential customers. Customers who truly qualify for this service will actually get to receive decent speeds comparable to what Time Warner Cable and Comcast offers.

We were originally planning to market this as competitive with FiOS fiber optic speed, but I’m honestly not surprised they dropped that angle once they thought of how stupid it would sound to veteran DSL customers that a standard telephone line could reach those speeds. Even the majority of our Frontier FiOS customers are sometimes lucky to receive the speeds that cable offers, but for different reasons.

If a representative says you do qualify for faster Internet service, it is still an absolute crap-shoot whether or not you will actually get through a two-hour streamed Netflix movie in two hours instead of four thanks to buffering issues.

We are still in the early stages of rolling out these new speeds and there are still many issues in our internal systems to work out. For example, if our internal Salesforce/DPI system has not been updated, you are not going to get the faster speed service even if you can see the central office from your house. When it does show a customer is qualified, both the customer and I rejoice because I get a commission and the customer can now successfully access Facebook in less than three hours. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and three of my orders for premium broadband Internet failed to complete despite the fact our system said they were qualified.

The cryptic reason? “Technology restraints do not allow this customer to reach any higher speeds.” That comes courtesy of our techs, who use it as a catch-all to cancel orders. Nobody can tell me why. I’ve asked dispatch, assignment, and tech managers and they have given me different explanations — none that seemed valid.

That leaves me calling back the customer, now excited they can finally use our broadband service to play online video games or Skype their son in college without being disconnected and let them know I was a big fat liar when I promised them something better, only to leave them stuck with what they had.

Next we need to update the information in those customers’ profiles so future reps do not lead them on. I have rechecked those accounts and to this day none of that information was updated. I just see my cancelled orders. So, there is even misinformation taking place within the company, preventing us from providing a risk free service.

Modem fees are a nuisance to a number of Frontier customers. The company is eliminating them for some customers.

Modem fees no longer apply to many Frontier broadband plans

Modem fees used to be an issue, however they are now increasingly included in the price of your broadband service. This can be especially good news in a competitive market where your broadband bill drops by nearly $7 a month, but those already using their own equipment will no longer see any savings from service credits applied to their monthly bills.

Are you really getting Frontier FiOS broadband speeds? Maybe not.

Speaking about misinformation, we have several Frontier FiOS customers that are actually only getting basic cable or DSL Internet speeds because their house was never actually wired with fiber. A street may have fiber optic cables all around, but if a customer is still using copper cable from the pole and inside their home, they are paying for services they are not getting. These customers are often noted in customer records we can access, but we are discouraged from sharing that information. This is not entirely our fault. This was a problem left over from the previous owner, Verizon Communications, which left us the mess to clean up. If you are only receiving half of the FiOS speed you are paying for, this may be why. If you complain, we will issue credit or create what we call a “SIFT Ticket” to send a tech to investigate a possible service upgrade.

Playing the Telephone Game with the telephone company

There have been countless times when I’ve been told five different things by five different people about how to handle a customer calling in for assistance. I understand that with millions of customers it is hard to predict what will happen on that next call, but simple things such as a consistent way to handle customer requests should be standard stuff. So, what can I do? Pick one of the five options and hope it is the right one for the customer.

Working for Frontier means dealing with short term goals that vary wildly day to day with no focus on any sort of objective. These loose operations and inconsistencies come straight from the top. This affects our long term goals as a company (whatever the hell those might be). These endlessly varying short term goals leave us with no foundation for long term goals because… again, there is no focus. That needed to be said twice.

Customers notice the rampant inconsistencies. A lot of customers candidly tell me, “you guys are spread too thin, and there is a severe lack of communication between all of your call centers.”

This is true, and much of it has to do with our purchase of former Verizon landline customers. It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart. I feel like we have bit off more than we can chew, despite the fact management dismissed these concerns as “speed bumps from the conversion.”

It is now 2012 and 2013 is coming closer every day and I am still dealing with the same issues that should no longer be happening as often as they should.

So, in closing, this has been my rant about the company I work for. I do enjoy my job (honestly, I do) and the people I work with are great. Even the customers who scream and yell at me, or the ones who commend me for my work, they’re all great in their own way. Nothing is as satisfying as actually calming someone down who has an issue with their bill, only to have them apologize and be grateful they got me on the phone. You have to truly be a people person to do this job, and not just do it for the money or it won’t work out for you. I’m not the most perfect representative, but I hope to strive to truly make every day I’m there in my cube less and less miserable and tedious.

Hopefully this crap can eventually be flushed and one day soon Frontier’s wheels will run smoothly.