AT&T and Verizon: The Doublemint Twins of Wireless

In an unsurprising move, AT&T has followed Verizon Wireless and announced it has discontinued subsidies for wireless tablet devices.

Engadget received word from an AT&T insider the company has withdrawn subsidies often amounting to $150 off the devices in return for a two-year contract. The subsidies helped defray the more costly ($400+) 3G/4G-capable units most consumers bypass in favor of less expensive Wi-Fi-only tablets. Verizon Wireless stopped subsidizing tablets in June.

Consumers can still buy the devices at full price from AT&T, and in another move, AT&T slightly reduced its DataConnect pricing by $5:

• 250MB for $14.99
• 3GB for $30
• 5GB for $50
• Tethering to an existing shared data plan is available for an extra $10

AT&T also announced it was planning to limit the use of Apple’s FaceTime exclusively to those who agree to switch to the company’s new “Mobile Share” plans. AT&T will not allow customers with older individual or family use plans to use the popular video conferencing service over its mobile broadband network at any price.

The official statement, first reported by 9 to 5 Mac:

AT&T will offer FaceTime over Cellular as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans, which were created to meet customers’ growing data needs at a great value. With Mobile Share, the more data you use, the more you save. FaceTime will continue to be available over Wi-Fi for all our customers.

AT&T is able to introduce these types of restrictions because of the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce Net Neutrality protection on wireless networks. Net Neutrality would require carriers to treat online content, applications, and services equally, allowing customers to use and pay for the services of their choice.

Wireless carriers fought Net Neutrality claiming it would harm efforts to technically manage their networks and would ultimately discourage investment. But AT&T’s arbitrary, non-technical restriction of FaceTime suggests the company is actually pushing customers to the more-profitable service plans AT&T favors.

Wood

Consumer group Free Press policy director Matt Wood:

“These tactics are designed with one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money each month by handicapping alternatives to AT&T’s own products.  If customers want to use FaceTime on AT&T’s mobile network, then they have buy a more expensive monthly data plan with extra voice minutes and texts they’ll never use thrown in. Blocking mobile FaceTime access for much of its user base may be a win for AT&T but it’s a losing proposition for the rest of us.

“It’s not supposed to be this way. The Net Neutrality protections in place today for wireless are too weak, but at least prevent carriers from blocking these types of apps. The FCC’s rules prohibit such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by wireless companies. Such behavior would be a problem no matter what Internet platform you choose. It would be unimaginable on your home broadband connection. Apple’s FaceTime comes pre-installed on a Macbook Pro, too, but no home broadband provider would dream of blocking the app there unless you’d signed up for a more expensive data plan.

“The FCC’s Open Internet order aside, AT&T’s latest scheme to make you pay more for less would never fly if we had real competition in the wireless marketplace. Instead, we have Ma Bell’s twin offspring running amok and forcing consumers onto ridiculous plans that make them pay for the same data twice. It’s only going to get worse until lawmakers recognize the problem and act to solve this competition crisis.”

While AT&T will block many customers from using FaceTime, a competing service from Skype remains unaffected.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: Frontier — “Rightsizing” Our Broadband Revenue in Barely-Competitive Markets, Even When It Costs Us Customers

“We have been very disciplined with our [data] pricing and really trying to make sure that we are moving the prices up in a right direction and looking at customers who are paying way below where they should be,” Donald R. Shassian, chief financial officer and executive vice president of Frontier Communications told investors on a conference call earlier this month. “They are not a valued customer. If we can’t get them up, we are sort of letting them disconnect off, if you would, and it’s enabling us to be more disciplined.”

That “direction” has meant higher bills for some long-standing customers that suddenly lost discounts or service credits. One common example is Frontier’s mandatory broadband modem rental fee, increasingly turning up on customer bills even though they own their own equipment or had previously arranged a fee waiver. Ex-Verizon customers were particularly hard hit when Frontier switched to its own billing platform. Just about every customer has also been impacted by Frontier’s “junk fees,” including company surcharges that effectively raise the price of the service.

As a result of higher pricing and dissatisfaction with the quality of service, some customers have disconnected, and the company recently reported second quarter profits were down 44%, offset by slightly higher earnings from higher bills.

The New Frontier

Frontier Communications has enormously expanded its reach over the past few years. Frontier’s original “legacy” service areas were dwarfed in 2010 by the company’s acquisition of 4.8 million landlines from Verizon Communications.

Frontier’s Combined Service Map — Areas in red are “legacy” Frontier service areas. Those in blue were acquired in 2010 from Verizon. (click to enlarge)

Frontier roughly tripled in size as a result, and the huge spike in customers delivered four straight quarters of triple-digit revenue growth. But the transition for ex-Verizon customers has not been easy. Customers endured billing errors, service plan confusion, and service quality issues as Frontier got up to speed managing Verizon’s landline network. A significant number of those customers have had enough and are switching to other providers.

West Virginia is the best place to study the contrast between Frontier’s failures and successes. A large number of service problems and lengthy outages plagued the state after Frontier took charge of a landline network Verizon treated as an afterthought. Over at least a decade, Verizon allowed its landline network to deteriorate to abysmal condition in several areas of the state. Little was invested to upgrade service, and Verizon ultimately left West Virginia with one of the lowest national broadband service penetration rates — about 60 percent.

Verizon’s priorities were elsewhere: spend millions on FiOS fiber upgrades in larger, urban markets while letting rural landline networks stagnate. Eventually, Verizon’s management team decided it was no longer worth hanging on to these low priority service areas and began selling them off. FairPoint Communications acquired Verizon customers in northern New England and Frontier bought mostly rural midwestern and western territories long struck from Verizon’s priority list.

Wilderotter

Frontier’s key argument for acquiring Verizon landlines was that the company could bank on deploying broadband to a much larger percentage of customers than Verizon ever bothered to serve.

Frontier places a very high priority on broadband, because the company can significantly boost the average revenue it earns from each customer by providing the service. With Frontier often the only home broadband choice around in its most rural markets, the company can charge whatever it wants for DSL service, tempered only by how much customers can afford to pay. Broadband is also a proven customer-keeper, an important consideration for any company facing ongoing losses from customers dumping landlines for cell phones.

Since its acquisition, Frontier has been aggressively deploying rural broadband in the former Verizon territories — typically the cheapest form it can deliver — 1-3Mbps ADSL service. Frontier considers its legacy service areas already well-covered, claiming around 93 percent of customers can already subscribe to Frontier DSL.

In states like West Virginia, the fact anyone is supplying anything resembling broadband has been well-received by those who have never had the service before. But where competition exists, Frontier has been losing ground (and customers) as cable competitors provide more consistent, higher speeds and quality of service.

The frustration is especially acute in the Mountain State. Steve Andrews, a Beckley resident complained, “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.” Andrews added that on most days his Frontier-provided broadband provides only around 800kbps, not the advertised 3Mbps.

Frontier Admits It Uses Government (Your) Money to Expand Broadband Where It Would Have Expanded Service on Its Own… Eventually

Frontier Communications was by far the most enthusiastic participant in the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF). This subsidy program currently covers $775 of the cost to extend broadband service to a currently unserved customer. Frontier agreed to accept nearly $72 million from the program, which commits the company to offering at least 4Mbps broadband service to an additional 92,877 homes and businesses around the country.

But Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, admitted Frontier would have eventually spent its own money to extend service to those rural customers without a subsidy:

“Get broadband out faster to a bunch of customers that we would have built anyway, at some point in time. And it also accomplishes the objectives of using the funds that are available from the FCC. We actually could have taken more money…. So we felt good about it. We totally understand why the other carriers made the decisions they made because we didn’t — we’re not building anything on our legacy markets. So it’s the money. It’s all in the acquired properties where we still had pretty low penetration with enough density to support the parameters that the FCC put in place.”

The fund, paid for by telephone customers nationwide through a surcharge on customer bills, will also subsidize a lucrative business opportunity for Frontier, according to Wilderotter.

“These are unserved locations that really are not competitive at all,” Wilderotter told investors. “So there’s no competition in those areas. So we’re pretty excited about it. We think that this is going to be good for Frontier and good overall.”

More than $38 million of the total broadband subsidy Frontier received will be spent in 30 counties in just one state: Wisconsin. Among other locations where Frontier will spend the money:

• 1 Arizona county
• 2 California counties
• 1 Florida county
• 5 Idaho counties
• 25 Illinois counties
• 2 Indiana counties
• 26 Michigan counties
• 2 Nevada counties
• 8 New York counties
• 1 North Carolina county
• 8 Ohio counties
• 5 Oregon counties
• 2 Tennessee counties
• 7 Washington counties
• 25 West Virginia counties

Trying to Hang Onto Customers Frontier Already Has… With Serious Speed Boosts

Frontier’s speed plans through 2013.

One of the loudest and most consistent complaints Frontier broadband customers mention is the slow speeds they receive from Frontier’s DSL. Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps in rural areas, up to 10Mbps in urban areas. But in fact many customers report their speeds are much lower than advertised. Data from the FCC’s national broadband speed measurement program bears this out. Frontier was the only measured provider in the United States that has been losing ground in promised broadband speed and performance.

Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.

In highly competitive, urban markets Frontier will deploy VDSL2 technology which can support significantly faster and more reliable Internet speeds. In more rural markets, bonded ADSL 2+ will deliver speeds of 10Mbps or better to customers currently stuck with around 1-2Mbps speed.

Daniel J. McCarthy, president and chief operating officer:

• We expect our 20Mbps service to move from 28% of residential households today to 42% by year-end and then 52% by the end of 2013;
• The 12Mbps services planned to increase from 33% of homes today to 51% by year-end and 60% by 2013;
• And the 6Mbps service is planned to increase from 57% of homes today to 74% by year-end and 80% by 2013.

The new speeds will not come free of charge. Customers will be marketed speed upgrades for additional monthly fees.

Customers will also discover Frontier has been simplifying its packages and moving away from high-value promotional offers that bundled a free laptop, television, or satellite dish in return for a lengthy contract. Today, the company is emphasizing increasing discounts for customers subscribing to two or more services that include telephone/long distance, broadband, and satellite television.

Speeds Going Up, Employees (and their salaries) Going Down

Finally, Frontier executives told investors they are scouring the company looking for cost savings. They appear to have identified around $100 million worth, a good portion of which will come from employees facing job cuts or salary reductions.

Wilderotter said she is focusing on call center workers, retiree positions, and “tech op” savings.

“We still have some bubble workforce in the call centers that will continue to go away,” Wilderotter told Wall Street. “We have a number of employees, too, that are going to be retiring over these next several months. And our goal is not to replace any of those retirees either.”

One of the best examples of this cost savings, according to unions representing Frontier employees, is the forthcoming closure of an Idaho-based call center in Coeur d’Alene. More than 100 workers, average age 55, will lose their $15-21/hour jobs Sept. 18 while Frontier prepares to leverage cheaper labor in South Carolina.

Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.

Otero

When a former labor leader suddenly starts advocating for the interests of AT&T and other super-sized telecommunications companies, even as AT&T’s unionized work force prepared to strike, the smell of Big Telecom money and influence permeates the air.

Jack Otero, identified in the Des Moines Register as “a former member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council and past national president of the AFL-CIO’s Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,” penned a particularly suspicious love letter to deregulation that might as well have been written by AT&T’s director of government relations:

[…]Industries — like broadband Internet — are thriving and creating innovations. Tossing a regulatory grenade into these businesses could wreck markets that create value for consumers and jobs for workers.

The United States is one of the most wired nations in the world. More than 95 percent of households have access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and the vast majority can connect at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. And monthly packages start as low as $15. That means more families can go online to improve their job skills, look for work or help the kids with their school assignments.

More choices and higher speeds — the signs of a vibrant market — are the product of private investment, not public dollars. Internet service providers have invested over $250 billion in the last four years alone. This has created roughly half a million jobs laying fiber-optic and coaxial cable.

But some squeaky wheels are demanding heavy-handed regulations that would move our broadband Internet to the European model, where taxpayers have to subsidize outdated networks with slow speeds. Some want broadband providers to be required to lease their networks to competitors at discounted prices — as they do in Europe. But lawmakers in both parties agree that this policy, tried in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, failed miserably.

Others argue that broadband Internet providers should not be able to impose a small surcharge on the tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of consumers who download hundreds of movies and tens of thousands of songs every month — effectively the data usage of a business. They say these fees discriminate against online video companies like Netflix. But that’s silly. More than 99 percent of users can watch plenty of Apple TV or Netflix without approaching the lowest data allotment. Without tiered pricing plans, the rest of us would have to underwrite these super-users.

Okay then.

Otero’s Fantasy World of Broadband sounds great, only it does not exist for the vast majority of Americans. Are most of us able to connect at speeds exceeding 100Mbps?

If you happen to live in a community served by a publicly-owned broadband provider Otero effectively dismisses, you can almost take this fact for granted.

Some of America’s most advanced telecommunications providers are actually owned by the public they serve in dozens of communities small and large. EPB Fiber, Greenlight, Fibrant, Lafayette’s LUS Fiber, among others, deliver super-fast upload and download speeds at very reasonable prices while the giant phone and cable companies offer less service for more money.

The only major telecommunications company with a wide deployment of fiber-to-the-home service is Verizon Communications.

You cannot easily buy residential 100Mbps service from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, or a myriad of other telecom companies at any price, unless you purchase an obscenely expensive business account. From the rest, 100Mbps service typically sets you back $100 a month.

Otero’s quote of affordable $15 broadband is not easy to come by either. It usually requires the customer to qualify for food stamps or certain welfare programs, have a family with school-age children, a perfect payment history, and no recent record of subscribing to broadband service at the regular price.

The only people who believe America is the home of a vibrant market for broadband service are paid employees of telecom companies, paid-off politicians, or their sock-puppet friends and organizations who more often than not receive substantial contributions from phone or cable companies. The fact is, the United States endures a home broadband duopoly in most communities — one cable and one phone company. They charge roughly the same rates for a level of service that Europe and Asia left behind years ago. Broadband prices keep going up here, going down there.

Simply put, Mr. Otero and actual reality have yet to meet. Consider his nonsensical diatribe about the impact of the “heavy-handed” 1996 Telecommunications Act, actually a festival of mindless deregulation that resulted in sweeping consolidation in the telecommunications and broadcasting business and higher prices for consumers.

Otero is upset that big companies like AT&T and Verizon originally had to open up their networks in the early 1990s to independent Internet Service Providers who purchased wholesale access at fair (yet profitable) prices. Those fledgling ISPs developed and marketed third-party Internet service based on those open network rates. Remember the days when you could choose your ISP from a whole host of providers? In some markets, this tradition carried forward with DSL service, but for most it would not last.

The telecommunications industry managed to successfully lobby the government and federal regulators to change the rules. Phone companies did not appreciate the fact they had to open their networks for fair access while cable operators did not. So in 2005, the FCC allowed both to control their broadband networks like third world despots. Competitors were effectively not allowed. Wholesale access, where available, was priced at rates that usually guaranteed few ISPs would ever undercut the cable or phone company’s own broadband product.

The lawmakers who believed open networks represented awful policy were almost entirely corporate-friendly or recipients of enormous campaign contributions from the telecom companies themselves.

So which market is actually on the road to failure?

The LCLAA couldn’t do enough to help AT&T swallow up competitor T-Mobile USA.

The American broadband business model is a firmly established duopoly that charges some of the world’s highest prices and has rapidly fallen behind those “failures” in Europe.

In the United Kingdom, BT — the national phone company, is required to sell access at the wholesale rates Otero dismisses as bad policy. As a result, UK consumers have a greater choice of service providers, and at speeds that are increasingly outpacing the United States. Nationally backed fiber to the home networks in eastern Europe and the Baltic states have already blown past the average speeds Americans can affordably buy from the cable company.

Even Canada requires Bell, the dominant phone company, to open its network to independent ISPs selling DSL service. Without this, Canadians would rarely have a chance to find a service provider offering unlimited, flat rate service.

Otero’s final, and most-tired argument is that data caps force “average” users to subsidize “heavy” users. In fact, as Stop the Cap! reported this week, that fallacy can be safely flushed away when you consider the largest ISPs pay, on average, just $1 per month per subscriber for usage, and that price is dropping fast. The only thing being subsidized here is the telecom “dollar-a-holler” fund, paid to various mouthpiece organizations who deliver the industry’s talking points without looking too obvious.

The Des Moines Register omitted the rest of Mr. Otero’s industry connections. We’re always here to help at Stop the Cap!, so here is what the newspaper forgot:

• Mr. Otero is a board member of Directors of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI), a group funded in part by AT&T and Verizon;
• He is the past president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a group that enthusiastically supported the anti-competitive merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA;

Mr. Otero has a side hobby of penning nearly identical editorials with largely these same broadband talking points. One wonders what might motivate him into writing letters to the Des Moines Register, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Gainesville Sun, the Star-Banner, and the Ledger-Inquirer.

Otero may have a case for plagiarism, if he chooses to pursue it, against Mr. Roger Campos, president of the Minority Business RoundTable (the top cable lobbyist, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is labeled an MBRT “strategic partner” on their website). Campos uses some of the exact same talking points in his own “roundtable” of letters to the editor sent to newspapers all over the place, including the Ventura County Star, the Leaf Chronicle, and the Daily Herald.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: CenturyLink — Our Commercial Customers Deliver 60% of Our Revenue; Our Attention Follows Accordingly

“Business customers now drive about 60% of our total operating revenues,” CenturyLink CEO Glenn F. Post III told investors in March. “Our focus on delivering advanced solutions and data hosting services to businesses are key factors in improving our top line revenue trend.”

With residential customers departing traditional landlines at an average rate of 5-10 percent a year, keeping customers has become an important priority for a number of phone companies, especially those who have plowed millions into mergers and acquisitions to build their businesses. For the past several years, CenturyLink has been acquiring small, regional independent phone companies, a former Baby Bell, and a competing landline provider Sprint used to think would be an important part of its business.

Century Telephone’s original customers were mostly cobbled together from acquisitions from other phone companies, including names like GTE, Central Telephone Company of Ohio (part of Centel), Pacific Telecom, Mebtel and GulfTel. But the biggest expansion of the company would come from acquisitions of Sprint-spinoff Embarq and former Baby Bell Qwest.

Today CenturyLink operates one of the nation’s largest independent phone companies, and serves markets large (primarily on the west coast) and small (rural communities primarily in the southeast, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin).

CenturyLink’s revenues have often been uneven, mostly because of its acquisitions, landline losses, and the effects from competition in its larger markets. While CenturyLink’s acquisitions grew the company, they also saddled it with landline networks that have proved inadequate to meet the growing needs of customers. With a disconnect rate running between 6.4% this quarter and 7.6% in the same quarter a year ago, residential customers are leaving their voice lines behind in favor of cell phones and broadband customers are departing for faster speeds available from cable operators.

These “legacy services” lost the company $124 million in revenue — an 8.1% decrease over the past quarter. As customers depart, so do CenturyLink employees that used to handle the old landline network.

To make up the lost revenue, CenturyLink has gotten more aggressive in other areas of its business:

• Increasing focus on business/commercial and governmental services, including managed hosting, cloud computing and other commercially-targeted broadband initiatives;
• Deployment of fiber to cell towers as a growing revenue source;
• Limited, but ongoing rural broadband expansion;
• Development of Prism TV — a fiber to the neighborhood service targeting residential customers.

CenturyLink calls these their four key initiatives towards revenue stability, stable cash flow, and growth.

In the business services segment, CenturyLink sees enormous revenue potential selling businesses access to data centers, co-location services, and ethernet-speed broadband. Last year, CenturyLink acquired Savvis, an important enterprise-level service provider and owner of 50 data centers. Phone companies like CenturyLink are also in a race with large cable operators to be the first to offer cell phone companies access to “fiber-to-the-tower” service to support exploding data growth on 4G wireless networks.

Faster DSL, Fiber to the Neighborhood-Broadband Key to Keeping Residential Customers Happy

CenturyLink’s network map showing both its own service areas, and infrastructure obtained from the acquisition of Qwest.

For consumers, CenturyLink has been moderately aggressive in some areas boosting speeds of its DSL services. The company claims 70% of their DSL-capable landline network provides speeds of at least 6Mbps. At least 55% supports 10Mbps or higher; over 25% can manage 20Mbps or faster.

The company’s Prism TV service, a fiber to the neighborhood upgrade comparable to AT&T U-verse, is now available to nearly 6.3 million homes and apartments in eight cities. By year end, CenturyLink says it will increase that to 7.1 million homes.

Prism represents a significant portion of CenturyLink’s investment in its residential business. So far, the results have not proven a major threat to the competition. CenturyLink added 15,000 Prism subscribers in the first quarter, but the company only has 8% of the market. Cable and satellite providers continue to dominate. But the company says Prism is helping to keep the customers they already have.

CenturyLink says it now taking Prism TV west into former Qwest territory, starting in and around Colorado Springs, Col.

Customers will likely be offered 130 channels starting at $59.99 a month with a free set top box (new customers typically receive a $20 monthly discount for the first six months of service).

The phone company will compete with Comcast, which sells 80 channels for $56 a month (new customers get a $26/mo discount for the first six months).

With CenturyLink providing a better deal, at least for television service, Colorado City officials hope the competition will bring down rates, at least for new customers. That may be exactly what happens, predicts Mark Ewell, a senior account executive with Windstream Communications.

“We could see some pressure on Comcast’s rates. I would like to see Comcast adopt a price model that doesn’t go up after a promotional period,” Ewell told The Gazette.

“CenturyLink is likely to be more of a threat to the satellite providers like DirecTV and Dish because they have a much higher market share in Colorado Springs than they do in most other markets because so many customers left Adelphia [acquired in bankruptcy by Comcast] when it had its financial problems. Those customers have already shown a willingness to leave the cable television provider and try another service.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CenturyLink Prism TV.flv[/flv]

CenturyLink shows off its new Prism TV offering in this company-produced video.  (2 minutes)

CenturyTel acquires Embarq and changes its name to CenturyLink to reduce the emphasis on its traditional landline business.

CenturyLink’s arrival in the triple-play business of phone, Internet, and television service could be the first serious competition Comcast has gotten outside of satellite providers. WideOpenWest had a franchise to provide service in 2000 but never did. Falcon Broadband won a franchise in 2006, but only provides service to around 1,500 customers in the Banning Lewis Ranch, Black Forest, and Falcon areas. Porchlight Communications received a franchise in 2007, installed service for 500 customers but ultimately never charged them. Porchlight’s IPTV service never worked properly with its chosen set top boxes. That fatal flaw put the company out of the cable business, and the company turned the porch light off for good, abandoning its franchise.

Rural Broadband: Unless the Government Delivers More Subsidies, Rural Customers Will Continue Waiting

In late July, CenturyLink announced it would accept $35 million from the Federal Communications Commission’s new Connect America Program (CAP) to deploy broadband to homes and businesses in rural, broadband-deprived parts of its service area.

CenturyLink has the capability to extend broadband to 100 percent of its customers, but not the willingness to invest the money to make that happen, critics contend. CenturyLink freely admits it applies a financial test when considering when and where to expand its DSL broadband service into its most rural service areas.

In short, the company must recoup its costs of deploying broadband within a certain time frame, and be confident that a certain percentage of customers are going to sign up for broadband service, before it will agree to make the investment. Virtually all of CenturyLink’s current service areas have already met or failed that test, which leaves an indefinite group of broadband “have’s” and “have-nots.”

To shake up the status quo, the FCC proposed to shift Universal Service Fund money, collected from all phone customers, away from landline service towards rural broadband deployment. This invites CenturyLink, and other phone companies, to run those financial tests again. With urban customers footing part of the bill, theoretically more homes should squeak past the return on investment test.

In fact, more homes will finally get CenturyLink broadband — around 45,000 in semi-rural and suburban areas where the costs to provide the service are not as great as in truly rural areas.  The FCC is offering to cover just short of $800 per household to cut the costs of deploying rural Internet access.

But CenturyLink complains the money is not nearly enough to solve the really-rural broadband problem.

“In very rural areas where we really have the greatest need for support, this amount, on a per-location basis, will not be enough to allow us to really do an economic build-out,” Post told investors this spring. “So we’re still in the process really of evaluating our opportunities….”

That will leave CenturyLink likely spending considerably more upgrading its urban landline network to support Prism TV instead of supplying rural broadband service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CenturyLink History.flv[/flv]

Jeff Oberschelp, vice president and general manager of CenturyLink of Nevada discusses the past history of CenturyLink and where phone companies are going in the future in this company-friendly interview.  (6 minutes)