Despite glowing media reports about Time Warner Cable’s announcement it is investing $25 million to expand its fiber optic network in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, in fact the fiber expansion is part of a previously-reached franchise agreement with New York City officials and will only be available to large business customers that can afford the asking price.

Time Warner Cable’s press release, which generated favorable media coverage in The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, focused considerable attention on fiber upgrades for the Brooklyn Navy Yard, since reborn as a modern tech-friendly business park.

TWCBC also announced that the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, a 501(c)(3) organization, will receive a state-of-the-art Time Warner Cable Learning Lab in its Employment Center, located inside the massive complex and accessible to the public.

“We are very pleased to work with the City of New York to make significant investments to ensure that this city has the technology infrastructure to successfully compete in a worldwide marketplace,” said Ken Fitzpatrick, President of Time Warner Cable Business Class, East Region. “Our fiber optic network provides dedicated Internet access at incredible speeds and high-bandwidth capabilities to serve the communications needs of any business.”

Time Warner Cable was required to make its investment in the Brooklyn Navy Yard as part of its franchise agreement with NYC officials.

Time Warner Cable did not, however, provide this investment out of the goodness of their heart. They were required to under the terms of the current franchise agreement the company signed with city officials:

[Time Warner Cable] will install, at its own expense, the fiber optic and coaxial cables and related facilities and equipment needed to provide its service to the buildings and occupants throughout the Brooklyn Navy Yard facility.

Time Warner Cable is also extending its network to more commercial establishments throughout the city, in keeping with its previously-announced interest in expanding services to business customers. Nothing new to see here either.

That did not stop Bloomberg News from comparing Time Warner’s network expansion with Google’s gigabit network in Kansas City:

Time Warner Cable Inc. will expand fiber-optic lines to businesses in New York, a move that boosts Internet speeds as much as 20 times and provides an East Coast counterpoint to Google’s ultrafast network in Kansas City.

The company faces a threat from Google more than 1,000 miles away in Kansas City, where the Internet-search giant is building a fiber-optic network as a test project. Time Warner Cable is the main broadband provider for the area, which spans parts of Missouri and Kansas. While Google’s network will be available to both companies and households, Time Warner Cable’s New York fiber network is focused on businesses.

Google’s network initially will only be sold to residential customers, which are the primary targets for the service. Time Warner Cable’s fiber backbone network primarily works in tandem with its coaxial cable network and does not provide a fiber to the premises connection except for the company’s largest corporate customers.

Time Warner Cable Business Class sells different speeds and services to commercial clients. Most choose speeds considerably lower than 1,000Mbps because of the cost.

What was missing from the coverage is the fact ordinary residential Time Warner Cable customers in New York City will not benefit from these fiber upgrades — they are targeted only to commercial clients. Residential customers will continue to receive the same hybrid fiber-coax service they always have from the cable company.

If New York customers want fiber service, they will have to buy it from Verizon, assuming FiOS has made its way to your borough and neighborhood.

Thousands of customers across northeast Massachusetts from Tewksbury to Rockport have been without Internet and phone service since early Monday after a mattress being used by a homeless man caught fire adjacent to Verizon’s copper and fiber optic cables on a bridge that crosses the Merrimack River.

”Your communications services may have been interrupted due to a fire in Lawrence that damaged a major cable providing service to your community,” Verizon’s dispatch manager Donna Powers wrote in letters sent to officials in the affected communities.

The outages are impacting communities including Gloucester, Manchester, Rockport, Essex, Littleton, Lawrence, Andover, North Andover and Tewksbury, and points in-between.

With high-capacity fiber circuits out of action, regional calls and certain Internet services were disrupted. Verizon is giving priority to restoring network operational and surveillance circuits, high-capacity fiber backbone circuits, and 911.

Verizon will not give a time frame when it expects to fully restore service, although the company indicated it is now rotating crews continuously to restore service to individual homes and businesses in the Lawrence and North Andover areas.

Lawrence Fire Chief Jack Bergeron said the problem started with a lit cigarette disposed on a vagrant’s mattress, which was on fire by the time firefighters arrived on scene. The mattress was on top of conduits that contained the copper and fiber cables, despite signs marked “danger” and “high-voltage.”

With no redundant backup facilities, a major outage can leave customers without service for days until repairs are completed.

Maggie Wilderotter's "High Speed" Fantasies

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter wrote this week the company’s network improvements and expanded broadband has moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five.

In an Op-Ed editorial published in the Charleston Gazette Tuesday, Wilderotter likened Frontier’s broadband improvement to the 1960s moon program.  Customers in West Virginia living with Frontier broadband can relate — to the 1960s anyway.

Where did Wilderotter get her information?  Perhaps from Frontier’s own Dan Waldo, who made the same claim last summer in an interview with MetroNews Talkline.  At the time he said it, West Virginia was ranked 47th in the country for broadband access.  It now ranks even lower today — 53rd by the federal government’s national broadband map (the federal government also ranks U.S. territories and possessions.)  In fact, West Virginia is in dead last place among U.S. states.  Only Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are worse.

This chart ranks the percentage of customers within a state receiving a minimum of 3Mbps download speeds and upload rates of at least 768kbps. (Source: National Broadband Speed Map/National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission )

The Center for Public Integrity is slightly more generous.  It ranked West Virginia 46th in broadband subscriptions.

Even Ookla, which analyzes millions of speed tests, tanked West Virginia, noting the average download speed is among the lowest of all 50 states at just 8Mbps, and that number seems high because it includes the state’s largest cable operators — the providers that actually deliver substantial broadband speeds.

Frontier’s contribution to West Virginia’s broadband improvement effort is measurable and noteworthy, at least for rural residents who can’t get broadband service any other way.  But many customers living with Frontier sure wish they could.

The company is expanding slow speed DSL service (1-3Mbps) to an increasing number of rural homes, but it does not come cheap.  On a megabit by megabit basis, all of the state’s cable providers deliver better value — more speed for the buck, when examining the actual “out the door price” that includes taxes, modem rental fees, and surcharges.  Frontier charges all of the above.

While Frontier delivers an average speed of 2.41Mbps in West Virginia, Comcast delivers more than 13Mbps.  Among wired providers, Frontier remains in last place.  Ookla shows some minor improvements in broadband speed, perhaps attributable to the network upgrades Wilderotter wrote about, but every other wired provider in the state performs better than Frontier’s DSL.  Who did worse?  Sprint’s 3G/4G wireless network and Wildblue, a satellite Internet Service Provider.

Average download speed performance of ISPs within West Virginia. (Source: Ookla; Graph Period: October 2009 - April 2012)

Wilderotter:

Broadband connectivity throughout all of America can be the thread that unites us all and helps pull our nation up again. Over the past two years in West Virginia, Frontier has worked with the state to bring broadband to thousands of residents and businesses. We have invested in a fiber backbone infrastructure that connects cities, libraries, schools, hospitals and government service facilities. The network improvements and the access to broadband have moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five. Economic development has picked up, and entrepreneurship is alive and well. Frontier is focused on taking this model to the other rural areas we serve throughout the United States.

Frontier’s efforts to expand broadband in a state its predecessor Verizon underserved for years is admirable and the company has indeed expanded service to areas that never had access before.  But as broadband rankings illustrate, Frontier’s incremental efforts are being overshadowed by more dramatic service and technology improvements in other states — the primary reason West Virginia is actually ranking worse than ever.  Frontier is not fooling anyone promoting its institutional fiber broadband networks ordinary West Virginians cannot access from their homes or businesses.  Our own readers tell us the company has repeatedly missed deployment schedules, broken promises, reduced speeds, and suffers from a woefully oversold network that slows to an intolerable crawl during peak usage periods.

Getting West Virginia among the top-five broadband states will require:

• Major investments in fiber optics into neighborhoods and homes.  All of the highest ranked states receive fiber to the home and/or fiber to the neighborhood service in larger cities, and faster DSL than what Frontier routinely sells West Virginians;
• An upgrade of the state’s broadband backbone to better manage increasing Internet usage during peak usage periods;
• Additional penetration of competing technologies into more rural areas.  Cable and fiber broadband deliver the fastest speeds, but most rural areas are bypassed.  Frontier will need to deploy faster and better service to dramatically improve the state’s broadband ranking.

Downtown Leverett (Courtesy: Town of Leverett)

Life in Leverett, Mass. could get a lot faster as the community considers entering the 21st century by bringing high speed gigabit broadband to town.

For years, residents have had three relatively slow choices for Internet access: dial-up, wireless or satellite-delivered service.  Verizon and cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which have systems in western Massachusetts, have largely ignored Leverett’s need for speed.

Now the town is considering building its own fiber-to-the-home network to reach every home in Leverett starting in 2014.  The proposed $3.6 million network will also offer residents cable television and phone service — helpful upgrades in the western half of Massachusetts where Verizon has allowed their landline network to degrade to conditions declared intolerable by the state Department of Telecommunications.  Last year, the state agency ordered Verizon to assess and repair its landline network in almost 100 communities in the western half of the state.

Town officials will introduce their plans for the new municipal broadband network at a public meeting April 28.  The community would borrow the money to construct the network, paying it off over 20 years and outsourcing its construction and maintenance to outside companies.

The town originally planned a fiber-to-the-neighborhood network similar to AT&T U-verse, but quickly decided the benefits of a true fiber-to-the-home network were worth the extra investment.

Unlike some other community-owned networks, Leverett will raise taxes on local residents to cover the cost of the service, but Selectman Peter d’Errico says it will save most residents money if they currently pay a satellite provider for broadband service. Research shows the largest majority of Leverett residents get broadband from satellite providers.

“It will be a little more on their tax bill and a lot less on their Internet bill, so overall they will pay less,” d’Errico told the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

d’Errico added the local community is done waiting for private companies to deliver modern telecommunications services in Leverett.  Those companies have repeatedly told town officials there isn’t enough profit or return on investment to justify expanding broadband in rural communities.

Leverett hopes to serve as a template to more than 40 other western Massachusetts communities who belong to WiredWest, a consortium of similarly-situated towns working together to build a regional broadband network.  Leverett’s network would leverage the Massachusetts Broadband Institute’s 1,300 “middle mile” fiber backbone network that is working its way through 123 western and central Massachusetts towns.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGGB Springfield Internet Connection in Leverett 4-11-12.mp4[/flv]

WGGB in Springfield previews Leverett’s efforts for better broadband. Big commercial providers ignore the community so now they want to provide service themselves.  (2 minutes)