One month after Frontier Communications took over phone service from Verizon Communications in West Virginia, unresolved problems over West Virginia’s telephone system continue to mount, leaving one sheriff’s department using Facebook to communicate with some residents and a renewed call for an investigation over Frontier’s poorly functioning “Operational Support System.”

One serious problem is in Wetzel County, where the local sheriff’s office faces trouble from disruptions to their call management system that began July 1st, the date Frontier switched over operations from Verizon Communications.  Calls that are intended to reach individual officers’ direct extensions or voicemail are instead being diverted into a black hole, as callers are told they will be transferred to an operator that does not exist.

The result of the ongoing, month-long problem is that individual residents are unable to reach officers except through the county’s Facebook page and website.  Emergency calls to 911 are not affected, but calls transferred from 911 to the sheriff’s office are.

Despite weeks of back and forth, Frontier is blaming an outside vendor for the problem, claiming the sheriff’s office needs to order a “part” to repair the all-digital call management system.  That doesn’t seem to impress Wetzel County Sheriff James Hoskins, who wonders why the problem suddenly started the same day Frontier switched away from Verizon’s systems.  Additionally, voicemail messages saved on Verizon’s old system are no longer accessible to the department.

Meanwhile, other service disruptions continue to pile up across the state, along with consumer and business complaints at the Consumer Advocate’s Division of the Public Service Commission.  Things have deteriorated so much, the state’s Consumer Advocate Byron Harris is asking the Commission to hold hearings on Frontier’s poor performance in the state.

Harris told MetroNews the problems have gone beyond glitches.

“In any transition between companies, there are always going to be some glitches, but this has gotten past the point of glitches,” Harris said.

FiberNet uses Frontier’s landline network and, last week, that company asked for a similar review.  FiberNet officials say their customers have been experiencing many problems since the change at the beginning of the month.

“At the Consumer Advocate’s Division, we’ve also noticed a significant increase in complaints, across the board, all types of complaints from customers,” he said.

Harris says customers that are having problems are, in some cases, also finding it difficult to get in touch with anyone with Frontier to report their issues.

But Frontier Spokesperson Brigid Smith says it’s impossible to completely avoid all such problems.

“We are 30 days into a very, very large change which, by and large, has gone very well,” Smith told MetroNews.

“There have been glitches.  We have taken accountability for those.  We are trying to fix a system that has been sorely neglected and we are very, very committed to the state.”

Stop the Cap! reader Janel from Huntington thinks that excuse is becoming the equivalent of a broken record.

“Frontier can’t help but tell people here over and over and over how great of a job they’re doing and how well the transition went,” she writes.  “But there are a whole lot of people who disagree — they just don’t happen to work for Frontier.”

Janel’s cousin lost his DSL service for nearly a week after the transition and after repeated calls to customer service finally learned the company lost his records.

“They deactivated his account and their customer service people, when they bothered to answer, were about as useful as a car in a ditch,” she notes. “They had no record he even had an account and thought he was served by some other company, despite having a phone bill he was willing to fax them showing he had their DSL service.”

Frontier eventually “re-established service” after re-entering his customer information and reauthorized the DSL modem.

Frontier’s unionized employees facing enormous overtime demands are perhaps the best evidence Frontier continues to experience serious transition issues.

Frontier used a provision in its union contract with the Communications Workers of America to demand 70-hour workweeks for many Frontier service technicians working in West Virginia, declaring an “emergency and long term service difficulty.”

With an extremely hot summer underway, line technicians are facing long hours in 90 degree plus weather repairing lines Verizon neglected for years.  Transition issues are also being blamed for long overtime hours as Frontier works its way through a large number of unresolved support requests.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTRF Wheeling Major Concerns With Phone Line at Wetzel County Sheriff’s Office 7-31-10.flv[/flv]

WTRF-TV in Wheeling, W.V., reports on the concerns of the Wetzel County Sheriff’s Office, which is still without properly working phone service a month after Frontier Communications took over phone service in the state.  (3 minutes)

“The World Company is complimented that a number of companies have expressed interest in its Sunflower division over the years. This continues today. There is no definitive agreement concerning Sunflower with any company at this time.” — Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman, The World Company

Those words were reported Wednesday in a brief story published by the Lawrence Journal-World is response to an article published by cable trade magazine Multichannel News that Sunflower Broadband was close to a sale to Knology.

The denial of a definitive agreement does not mean the company isn’t close to reaching one, which was the original claim in the article written by Mike Farrell.

The non-denial denial didn’t dampen excitement by several Sunflower Broadband customers who were delighted to learn of the potential ownership change for the usage-capping broadband provider.

Some have stayed with AT&T’s DSL service just to escape Sunflower’s pricing, which one reader called “insane.”

Another claims AT&T’s upgrades have helped improve broadband service: “AT&T service has improved greatly…not to mention the price blows Sunflower away. Though AT&T will not tell you that you don’t have to have their modems. Go to Best Buy and get a third party modem.”

However, the broader implications of a sale of the cable company are worrying some Lawrence residents pondering the future of the hometown newspaper, the aforementioned Journal-World.  Sunflower Broadband and the LJW share a common owner — The World Company.  While the cable industry remains very profitable, many newspapers are not.

Phil Cauthon added his views to the Lawrence Broadband Observer on the topic:

I can’t see how this is anything but ominous for the Journal-World. Sunflower has a been a boon to the otherwise sinking newspaper ship. Unless some of the money from this sale is set aside as a foundation to support the newspaper over the long term, I don’t see how the Journal-World survives post-Knology sale. That Dolph Simons is still alive during a sale bodes well for that kind of prospect. Otherwise, I hope the Kansas City Star sees fit to serve Lawrence as a primary market—maybe even purchasing the LJW—with more than just a page or two of “metro” coverage.

Tim Conway's "Old Man" character from the Carol Burnett Show would be right at home using the Internet in these areas.

Nick Saint at the Business Insider has been sifting through some of the raw data released last week by the Federal Communications Commission regarding broadband service in the United States.  He’s managed to identify the 10 worst counties in America for broadband service based on statistics from 2008.  But two of those probably should have never been on the list.  More on that later.

Harrison County, Mississippi — A single pond in Harrison County is the only known habitat of the critically endangered dusky gopher frog.  It doesn’t have broadband, and neither do most of the residents of this beleaguered part of southern Mississippi.  The cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are in Harrison County, an area torn up by hurricanes from Camille to Katrina.  Now, the beaches are coated in BP oil.  Harrison County can’t get a break. Cable One and AT&T are the primary providers.  Cable One’s dreadful service only reaches well-populated areas and AT&T has taken its sweet time expanding DSL service in the area.

Imperial County, California — The nation’s lettuce basket, Imperial County communities live on a very low fiber-optic diet.  While the soil is rich for crops, the people who plant and harvest them are not.  El Centro, the biggest city, has some broadband available, but with the city having the nation’s highest unemployment rate (27.3 percent), many can’t afford it.  Once in farm country, cable doesn’t offer service and DSL is hard to come by.

Corson County, South Dakota — Representative of the pervasive problem of broadband unavailability on Native American lands, a large part of Corson County includes the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.  Saint notes the FCC found just 12.5 percent of Native Americans subscribe to broadband service, compared to 56 percent of the rest of us.

Ector County, Texas — Odessa’s hometown America-charm was put on display for all to see on NBC’s Friday Night Lights, which celebrated small town high school football.  The reality is less exciting.  Like Harrison County, Ector residents are stuck with Cable One, which loves Internet Overcharging schemes and spied on its Alabama broadband customers.  Good ole AT&T grudgingly provided DSL, if you could get it, until mid-2009 when U-verse finally started to show up.  Now large parts of the county outside of Odessa can’t get that either.

San Juan, Puerto Rico — Usually considered an afterthought by American telecommunications companies, Puerto Rico has long suffered with low quality service.  Caribbean Net News: “Puerto Rico’s broadband penetration rate is unacceptable, with less than 40% of households subscribing to broadband services”, said Carlo Marazzi, President of Critical Hub Networks. “While there are many factors at play, broadband in Puerto Rico is simply too expensive and too slow, when compared to the rest of the nation.  Broadband Internet service in Puerto Rico is 60% more expensive and 78% slower than the United States national median. In a report published this year by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) which ranked broadband speeds in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico was ranked in last place (52nd place).

Jasper County, Missouri — Saint noted 18 percent of Jasper County lives below the poverty line, which is not exactly attractive to broadband investment.  Jasper County’s broadband needs are barely met by a cable provider, AT&T, and for some, an electric utility operating a Wireless ISP, providing service where cable and DSL don’t go.  For Jasper County residents, the challenge can be cost as much as access.

Appomattox County, Virginia — Every student known Appomattox was the last stand of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee during the Civil War.  Today, residents there are worked to their last nerve because they can’t easily obtain high speed Internet.  There is no DSL service from the phone company and only limited cable service.  But at least the county is trying.  Let’s let John Spencer, assistant county administrator, tell you in his own words what Appomattox County is doing to deliver broadband for its 14,000 residents:

Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska — The epitome of rural America, large swaths of Alaska are dependent on subsidies paid from the Universal Service Fund for basic telephone service.  Outside of large cities, cable television is a theory.  Telephone company DSL service and wireless are the predominate broadband technologies in rural, expansive Alaska.  For many areas, both are awful.  Bristol Bay Borough is known as the “Red Salmon Capital of the World,” if only because there are far more salmon than there are fishermen to catch them.  Internet access for many of the area’s 953 residents means a trip to the Martin Monsen Library, which offers free Wi-Fi for limited access. If you want Internet at home, it will cost you plenty:

Kyle "What Broadband Problem?" McSlarrow

In Kyle McSlarrow’s world, the only broadband problem is the one invented by the Federal Communications Commission when it claims that service is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis.  The head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s lobbying group, has declared today’s broadband a U.S. “success story that keeps getting better.”

Writing in the group’s “CableTechTalk” blog, McSlarrow tells his readers that 95 percent of Americans already have broadband service available to them that meets the 4Mbps minimum speed standard proposed by the FCC, so where is the big problem?

McSlarrow’s interest in the economics of rural broadband is ironic considering the cable industry routinely bypasses rural Americans.  Where cable lines do predominate, meeting the FCC’s anemic 4Mbps minimum speed standard is not the biggest problem — cost is.  Where cable lines don’t reach, speed is an issue for many wireless and DSL subscribers.  For others, broadband service is not available at any price.

McSlarrow plays cable’s advantage on speed issues to promote minimum speeds higher than those sought by phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.  Of course, cable broadband does not rely on antiquated copper wire telephone networks.  In rural areas, many of these networks are held together with minimal investment.  DSL at any speed can be a luxury when available.

McSlarrow’s recognition that most of rural America will continue to be served by telephone companies doesn’t stop the cable industry from seeking an advantage over their nearest competitors by advocating for reduced subsidies for rural areas and policies that guarantee no potential competitor can ever see a dime in government broadband money.

Because the report plainly acknowledges that there is no reasonable business case to be made for extending broadband facilities to many of the unserved homes.  So instead of viewing the report’s finding as an indictment of broadband providers, it’s  perhaps better read as a statement of principle by the Chairman and two commissioners that, in their opinion, broadband already should be universally available, and, if there is no business case for that universal deployment, the government may have to step in to achieve it. So far as that goes, we agree.  For example, we support the report’s call to action on specific items that will speed broadband deployment to unserved communities.  Immediate FCC action on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and pole attachment policy is critical to connecting unserved areas.

As explained in comments we filed last week, our industry strongly supports the USF reforms recommended in the National Broadband Plan (NBP).  To fund the FCC’s broadband USF proposals, we recommend adopting our proposal – filed in a November 2009 rulemaking petition – to reduce subsidies in rural areas where ample phone competition exists.  The sooner the Commission reduces unnecessary funding in the existing high-cost support program, the sooner it can direct funding to broadband deployment and adoption.

McSlarrow’s comments neglect to tell the whole story about what the NCTA actually wrote in its comments filed with the FCC:

The 4Mbps/1Mbps standard reflects today’s marketplace reality that most consumers choose not to purchase the highest speed tiers that are offered by their broadband provider. By setting a standard based on the services actually purchased by consumers, the Plan strikes the appropriate balance – not so low that it deprives consumers of the ability to purchase a service that meets their needs and not so high that it will require a significant infusion of new government funding.

Second, based on this definition of broadband, the Plan found that the vast majority of Americans – 95% of households – already have access to broadband, and that 80% of those consumers live in geographic areas served by two or more providers. For these areas where broadband has already been deployed, there is no basis for any increase in support; indeed, as NCTA has demonstrated, in many of these areas there is no basis for any high-cost support at all.

Consequently, the only areas that should see an increase in the support they receive are those areas that do not have broadband and qualify for CAF support, i.e., areas where there currently is no business case for private investment in broadband facilities.

In Great Britain, speeds promised don't match speeds delivered. The FCC is studying whether the same is true in the United States.

McSlarrow is disingenuous about Americans’ interest in improved broadband.  It’s not surprising many do not choose the highest speed tiers available from telephone and cable providers when one considers the premium prices charged for that service.  Some NCTA members charge $99 for 50/5Mbps service, which in other countries like Hong Kong sells for a fraction of that price.  One need only consider Google’s plan to deliver 1Gbps service to a handful of American communities.  It’s easier to count the communities that were not interested in this super-fast service.

The cable industry can afford to relent on a 4Mbps minimum speed standard for downloading as virtually all cable broadband providers already offer “standard service” plans well above that rate.  The cable industry’s own “lite” plans, usually 1.5Mbps or less, are not exactly the industry’s most popular.  Americans will choose higher speed service at the right price.

Broadband availability figures have become an important political issue, which is why controlling broadband mapping is so important to cable and phone companies.  Being able to offer that “95 percent of Americans already have access,” a figure in dispute by the way, can make a big difference in the debate.  As Stop the Cap! readers have seen repeatedly, broadband maps that depict broadband service as widely available in many areas actually is not, especially from phone company DSL service, which depends heavily on the quality of the existing infrastructure.

Most importantly, the NCTA seeks a new, even stricter standard for broadband funding under Universal Service Fund reform that would immediately deny money to any applicant that cannot prove there is no chance for any private investment in broadband.  As we’ve seen from broadband improvement applications filed under the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, cable and phone companies routinely object to most proposals, claiming “duplication” of existing broadband service even in areas they have chosen not to provide service.  The NCTA would have us set the bar even lower, allowing any private entity to kill funding projects based solely on their claimed interest in providing the service themselves.

One sensitive spot the FCC did manage to hit was taking providers to task for advertising broadband speeds they don’t actually provide to customers.  While DSL speeds vary based on distance from the telephone company’s central office, cable broadband speeds vary depending on how many customers are online at any particular moment.  The cable industry’s shared access platform can create major bottlenecks in high-use neighborhoods, dramatically reducing speeds for every customer.  While some cable operators are better than others at re-dividing neighborhoods to increase capacity, others won’t spend the money to upgrade an area until service becomes intolerable.  That means consumers sold 10Mbps service may actually find it running at less than half that during evening hours.

A sampling of British cable and telephone company DSL providers, all of which aren't giving their customers what they are paying for.

McSlarrow’s view is there isn’t a problem there either — the FCC is relying on old data:

The key statistics in the report are drawn from Form 477 data for December 2008, data that was out of date when it was released earlier this year and is now 18 months old.  Broadband providers have made two subsequent Form 477 filings (with another one scheduled in a few weeks), so the reliance on stale data is frustrating.

Equally troubling is the Commission’s repetition of the NBP’s claim that “actual” broadband speeds are only half of “advertised” speeds.   After the NBP was released, we submitted an expert technical report demonstrating that the comScore data used was deeply flawed.  Since then, cable and telco ISPs have been working constructively with Commission staff on a hardware-based testing regime that should produce more accurate results.  Given the hard work that has been devoted to produce accurate speed measurements, it is disheartening that the 706 Report chose to perpetuate the NBP’s flawed speed data conclusions.

Finally, some of the data relied on in the 706 Report is not publicly available.  The report relies extensively on a cost model created for the NBP, but that model hasn’t been released, making it impossible to validate its results.  The Commission also repeatedly refers to an FCC staff report on international trends, but that report also has not been released.

The frustration McSlarrow writes about is shared by cable subscribers stuck in overloaded neighborhoods where service does not come close to marketed speeds.  The FCC is conducting an independent speed analysis that goes beyond speedtest data, and the results will be forthcoming.  In other countries where similar speed claims have not met reality, providers were usually found culpable for promising service they didn’t deliver.

Just ask Ofcom, the British regulatory agency charged with addressing this dilemma.  Earlier today they released evidence that 97 percent of UK broadband customers were not actually getting the speeds they were promised, and the gap between marketed speed and actual speed was growing. Will things be any different for American providers who use fine print to disclaim their bold marketing promises about speed?  Time will tell.

Finally, McSlarrow’s concerns about withheld data is ironic enough to call it a “pot to kettle” moment.  As those challenged with broadband mapping can attest, nobody keeps raw data about broadband availability and speeds closer to the vest than cable and telephone companies.

Of course, the ultimate agenda of the NCTA is to defend its industry’s record in broadband service, which means reducing any broadband challenges into little more than whining by Americans who don’t know how good they have it.