Frontier Communications continues to lose access line customers at a rate of 8.5 percent overall, 9.8 percent in the former Verizon service areas they acquired more than a year ago.  The company’s third quarter results show lackluster performance as revenue declines of 30 percent impacted both their residential and business customer units.

Company officials spent most of the question and answer session responding to Wall Street concerns about revenue, spending, promotions, customer churn, the company’s pension fund, and the outright defection of Frontier FiOS TV customers away from the fiber network the phone company inherited from Verizon.

Mike McCormack of Nomura Securities suggest the weak figures should concern investors because it may show Frontier unable to compete effectively with cable companies, which also offer phone service.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter put her best face forward trying to promote the company’s successes, particularly bringing DSL broadband to former Verizon service areas:

“Our broadband expansion reached an additional 126,000 new homes in the acquired properties during the quarter, bringing our year-to-date total to 352,000 which is on track to reach our 2011 goal of increasing broadband availability to more than 400,000 additional homes. Broadband availability in the acquired properties is now 80%, a significant increase from the mid-60% range when we acquired them. As a result of our expansion and sales efforts, we had a very strong quarter for broadband growth, adding 16,900 total DSL subscribers, a 38% sequential increase from Q2. We also added 2,300 wireless data customers. This growth reflected the effectiveness of our local engagement model, as well as organic demand for broadband in both legacy and acquired properties.

“We have also largely completed our efforts to migrate middle mile congestion, which now gives us the ability to more effectively market higher speeds in markets that were already enabled.”

Frontier executives sought to portray West Virginia as their biggest success story.

Daniel J. McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer and executive vice-president, claims Frontier’s installation of 12 integrated fiber rings throughout the state provides broadband capacity and integrated network capability beyond what is available anywhere else in the United States from a state-wide perspective.  McCarthy claims Frontier is on track to turn West Virginia from one of the least connected states in the nation to one of the most connected.

But Margaret Kings from MacArthur, W.V. says she’ll believe it when she sees it, and she hasn’t seen it yet.

“My extended family has experienced endless problems dealing with Frontier in this state, and I have relatives in the Panhandle to boot,” Kings says. “We have collectively won more than $300 in service credits for out of service broadband and phone service, slow speeds when it rains, and missed appointments, billing errors, sneaky charges, and contract disputes.”

Kings’ immediate family left Frontier for Suddenlink more than a year ago when she moved.

“Why pay Frontier more for phone service and 1.7Mbps broadband when I can pay Suddenlink less for their phone service and 10Mbps Internet access,” she asks.

Frontier hopes to win back former customers with new broadband services, such as their newly-introduced “Second Connect” service, which delivers a second DSL line for existing broadband homes for what the company claims is $14.99 a month.  Frontier says a few thousand customers have signed up for the service, which is now being pitched aggressively by Frontier’s call centers.

But some customers who have signed up for the service are accusing Frontier of billing fraud for wildly misleading customers about the true cost of the service.

The $14.99 price tag Frontier advertises omits modem rental fees, taxes, surcharges, and other fees customers first discover on their monthly bill.

Chris Photoni discovered, after five calls and a combined two hours on hold, the true out-the-door price for Frontier Second Connect is actually $48 for him.  The Broadband Reports reader elaborates:

Don’t waste your time. Even after the ‘corrections’ the Second Connect line cost around $48. I say ‘around,’ [because] I haven’t met a staff member yet that could correctly calculate tax. How convenient for you Frontier. Their computer system can calculate it for your bill, but is unable to calculate it when inquiring about the service.

The new ‘taxes’ come to $27.64!

Frontier is one of the worst phone companies. They have terrible customer service, and the wait times usually seem to be 20-30 minutes per call. Most issues take at least THREE calls to resolve. I’ve actually have been on hold for 25 minutes as I’m writing this.

Kings said she wouldn’t have bothered inquiring about Second Connect in the first place.

“Let me understand this,” she writes. “The same phone company that offers 1.7Mbps to my house wants another $15 a month to ‘double my speed?’  I could pay $100 a month to Frontier for 3Mbps broadband along with my phone line or pay Suddenlink $100 for 10Mbps broadband, phone and cable-TV service.”

Other highlights from the conference call:

• Frontier is getting into the home security business in a two state trial with ADT and Protection 1.  Customers will be strongly encouraged to bundle the home security service with other telecommunications products to hold them in contracts and provide discounts up to 15 percent;
• Frontier will begin to resell AT&T wireless voice and data services in bundles with existing products. Frontier plans to trial this service during the first half of 2012 before expanding it nationally.  This service is only going to be available to bundled service customers.  Why customers wouldn’t pursue an agreement with AT&T themselves, without the phone company’s involvement, isn’t well-explained;
• The company plans no significant high-value promotional offers for the 4th quarter.  They didn’t pitch any during the 3rd quarter either.  Customers with pre-existing promotions, including “free satellite TV for 2011” or “six months of free DSL” will find their bills rising considerably as those promotions expire in the next few months;
• Frontier’s pension plan is not in the best shape.  The company had to contribute $58 million of real estate to the plan fund to manage investment losses for the year;
• Frontier’s $500 FiOS installation fee has effectively kept new customers away from the fiber network.  Although the company claims it wants to maintain support for FiOS, video customers have left in droves and a smaller number of broadband customers have left as well, primarily for Comcast;
• Frontier plans to continue investment in its middle mile network to handle broadband traffic growth in 2012 and 2013.

While you plod along with 3Mbps DSL service, an increasing number of British broadband users can now buy speeds up to 100Mbps.  Those speeds come increasingly from the deployment of fiber optics by cable competitor Virgin Media, which now reaches over 20 million residents with fiber-fast service.

The latest regions to be enabled for 100Mbps service include Harborne in Birmingham, Lincoln, Seven Kings in Greater London and Solihull.  Virgin said it will complete the roll out of 100Mbps service across the entire Virgin network by the middle of next year.

Virgin has attacked some of its competitors for promising fast speeds but never delivering them.  Oversold ADSL service has been an issue for many British households who are promised speeds of 10Mbps or better, only to discover speeds slowing to a crawl during peak usage periods.  Virgin says its fiber network has a level of capacity unprecedented in the United Kingdom and it can actually deliver sustained speeds to its customers day or night.

Efforts by British Telecom to improve its network are progressing with a fiber-to-the-neighborhood expansion project to handle increasing demand.  BT’s fiber network ends at street-side cabinets, where traditional copper telephone wiring delivers broadband to individual homes.  But BT’s broadband speeds are faster than what North Americans can purchase from similar networks like AT&T U-verse and Bell’s Fibe.  Current top speeds of 40/10Mbps have been declared inadequate, so the British phone company is planning to double them by early next year.

Faster speeds are always welcomed by customers.  Virgin notes over half of their customers purchase speeds of 30Mbps or faster.  BT’s move to supply 80/20Mbps broadband to customers will help keep the phone company competitive.

“It will provide a further boost for local businesses and homeworkers as well as families and other people for whom the internet has become an essential part of their daily lives – whether it’s for leisure, education or business,” said Brendan Dick, director of BT Scotland.

Now selling for the "go away" price of $500 for installation.

Frontier Communications has proven it can successfully herd customers off the award-winning advanced fiber network it inherited from Verizon Communications just by increasingly gouging customers until they call and cancel.

The phone company reports success in ridding itself of 9,900 FiOS TV customers in the third quarter alone, and 3,100 FiOS Internet customers left with them in Indiana and Oregon.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter and other company executives made it known last spring that FiOS fiber optics was the unwanted stepchild best left forgotten when telling investors the company considered the fiber network unprofitable.  The company has since taken to hike rates and raised the price for service installation to as much as $500.  The combined increases have made the cable competition — Comcast — blush and look downright cheap by comparison.

Where did Frontier’s customers go?  Several left for Comcast, but others were persuaded to switch to an aggressively-priced satellite TV promotion, at least until it expires.  Frontier added 12,200 satellite subscriptions nationwide last quarter and 16,200 new DSL customers, many in ex-Verizon service areas that currently have no other choice for broadband.

This dollar-a-holler astroturf effort failed to impress Longmont voters, who turned back a Comcast-funded opposition campaign to open up the city's fiber network.

Longmont, Col. residents turned their backs on a Comcast-funded campaign to block the opening of the city’s 17-mile fiber loop to competing broadband providers in a strong vote of approval.

As of early this morning, 60.8% of voters approved Ballot Question 2A.  Just 39.2% opposed the measure.

Longmont’s fiber network, built in 1997 and paid for by the Platte River Power Authority, has heretofore been off-limits to the public.  Colorado’s 2005 corporate welfare laws guarantee that taxpayer or ratepayer-funded broadband networks are kept away from the public that paid for them, for the protection of companies like Comcast and CenturyLink.

This results in the construction of showcase institutional fiber optic networks open to government, public safety, hospitals, and libraries… and practically nobody else.  Once built, institutional networks often go underutilized.  In Longmont, at least two-thirds of the city’s fiber optic network still goes unused 15 years after it was built.

The city government hoped to open the fiber network in time to bolster their application to Google to construct a gigabit network for residential and business customers, but after Google selected Kansas City for its fiber project, Longmont wants to keep its options open.  Passing the ballot question does exactly that.

“I’m glad to see 2A won,” Mayor Bryan Baum told the Times-Call. “I think it shows that money isn’t the determinator.”

Longmont voters were subjected to one of the most expensive pushback campaigns they’ve ever seen, thanks to Comcast, who spent $300,000 and counting to get the public to turn against the fiber network ballot question.

George Merritt, a spokesman for the cable-funded group Look Before We Leap, claims the vote results show “the measure’s narrow margin of victory.”  Merritt’s group relied heavily on a highly-suspect 2006 case study by University of Denver professor Ron Rizzuto that claimed 80 percent of community-owned Wi-Fi broadband networks failed to make money.  But the group didn’t make any distinction between Wi-Fi and fiber optics, and more importantly they left out the fact Rizzuto was inducted into the Cable TV Pioneers in 2004 for service to the cable industry.  Rizutto’s “study” was a classic case of dollar-a-holler research on behalf of the New Millennium Research Council, a creature of the telecommunications industry.

New Millennium Research Council -> Issue Dynamics -> Comcast

In fact, the Council is a “project” of Issue Dynamics, Inc., a for-profit, high powered Washington lobbying firm. Issue Dynamics’ client list includes Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and the United States Telecom Association – the trade association for the telecom industry.  The direct relationship between Rizzuto’s findings, and cable companies like Comcast who paid for the research, never made it into the report (or onto the group’s website).

This is the second time Longmont voters have cast ballots on the issue of the city’s fiber optic network.

In 2009, voters faced another cable industry-funded astroturf effort, with $245,000 spent to successfully defeat a similar measure.  This time, thanks in part to public exposure of the companies pulling the strings behind the astroturf campaign, voters rejected the propaganda onslaught and passed the measure.  Cable bills have also increased several times since the 2009 measure, a reminder to the public why competition can make a real difference.

With the passage of 2A, the city can choose to leave the network exactly as it is today or partner with another provider to offer services to the public.  It’s now their choice, not Comcast’s.

You can look all over this astroturf group's website and never find the fact it's bought and paid for on behalf of Colorado's largest cable company -- Comcast.

The next time Comcast or CenturyLink wants to increase your rates because of the “increased costs of doing business,” you might want to ask them why they have collectively spent more than $300,000 on an astroturf campaign to stop the city of Longmont, Col. (pop. 86,000) from using excess fiber capacity to provide competition to the phone and cable company without raising taxes a penny.

Longmont voters are headed to the polls today with a simple question to answer: should the city be allowed to open their fiber network to all-comers to provide competitive video, data, and telephone services to city residents.  Longmont’s fiber network was constructed in the 1990s as part of its electrical infrastructure.  Some utility companies buried enormous amounts of fiber intending to use it to electronically collect usage data from ratepayers so meter readers could become a thing of the past.  Like in other cities, Longmont now has a fiber network that is woefully underused, and the city wants to open up the tremendous excess capacity for telecommunications uses.  They are even open to allowing Comcast and CenturyLink to use the network to help service their own respective customers, but the thought a new competitor (including a community-owned provider) might deliver service over that network has created an absurd $300,000 Hissyfit.

Comcast has been caught funding the majority of the opposition, the so-called “No on 2A” and “Look Before We Leap” projects, sponsored primarily by the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association, which counts Comcast as a member.

But visitors to the campaign’s cheesy website never realize who is running the show because the effort hides its association with Big Telecom.

It’s a classic example of Astroturf Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  Scare residents into believing the city will raise taxes or go into financial distress.  Raise uncertainty by claiming important details are being left out.  Encourage doubt by comparing the advanced fiber network with anemic public Wi-Fi failures of the past involving Earthlink (remember them?).

But the No on 2A campaign is also willing to check themselves into a deluxe suite at the Hypocrisy Hotel, accusing city officials of hiding the names of their pro-fiber supporters and backers, including (gasp!) a company based in France!

The No on 2A website breathlessly relates the incriminating documents were unearthed from “previously secret emails just made public thanks to a Colorado Open Records Act.” They suggest a nefarious connection with Alcatel-Lucent because that company, which sells products and services related to fiber networks, communicated with the city in a handful of e-mail messages last summer.  You know those French, always up to something.

When it doubt, blame the French for being in on it.

The rich, buttery irony of a “group” secretly funded by the state’s largest cable company accusing others of keeping secrets is ignored at Kabletown.

But then I’ve received e-mail from Alcatel-Lucent (and Comcast) myself.  And I have a French last name.  Sacrebleu!

The website’s “opponents,” evidently gleaned from the few hundred residents that signed their visitor’s book, includes names like Joanna Crawford, “Garrett County,” and El Cordova, which we think could be the name of a Mexican pro-wrestler, we’re not sure.

City officials are stunned by the sheer amount of money being spent by cable and phone companies to keep competition far, far away.  So apparently is the local media, which has taken to identifying the “grass roots” opposition right down to their job title and name of the lobbying firm they work for.

Take Times-Call, which helpfully discloses “Look Before We Leap” spokesman George Merritt is actually a senior strategist for Onsight Public Affairs of Denver.  That’s a real nice way to say “lobbying firm hired to develop social media strategies to snooker influence public opinion on behalf of corporate clients.”

You know you’re not dealing with a neighborhood group lobbying to reduce road speeds in the neighborhood or sign a petition for improved trash collection when you read Leap’s financial disclosure reports:

• $120,913.64 to mass communications firm SE2 of Denver for a variety of services, including mail pieces, consulting, two television buys and ad production and design.
• $70,500 to Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach of Denver for “canvass, management rent and miscellaneous associates.”
• $37,500 to OnSight Public Affairs for consulting.
• $22,000 to Drake Research and Strategy of Boulder for polling.
• $15,776.84 to Zata3 for phone work.
• $12,260 to Holland and Hart of Denver for legal expenses.
• $8,000 to EIS of Grand Junction for consulting.
• $4,334.65 to Campaign Products of the Rockies, of Denver, for a voter file, mailing lists, stickers and yard signs.
• $2,500 to Mark Stevens of Denver for research.
• $743.75 to Tim Thomas of Boulder for general campaign work.

The whole dog and pony show of Big Telecom money has bemused Longmont mayor Bryan Baum, who supports the 2A measure and believes the distortion campaign has gone way over the top.

“It doesn’t really matter at this stage of the game,” Baum told the newspaper. “It’s going to the electorate. The electorate will vote. And we will know on Tuesday how they voted – if they believe a $300,000 ad campaign, or if they believe the people they’ve entrusted their votes to.”

Some of that $300,000 has also gone into vilifying a real grass-roots effort in support of the Longmont fiber initiative — Longmont’s Future.  Comcast’s front group tried to raise questions about where that pro-fiber group got their backing and money.  The newspaper discovered Longmont’s Future isn’t backed by any French conglomerate or nefarious outside interest.  It’s the work of Jonathan Rice, who operates the website all by himself, spending a grand total of $353 to fight Comcast’s $300,000.

“Every single candidate for office and every incumbent, in every race, supports this measure,” says Rice. “But Comcast and its friends are more interested in profit than progress, and continue to run a smear campaign to spread misinformation and outright lies – they recently posted Mayor Baum’s name as an opponent of 2A when he is actually a vociferous supporter.”

Community Broadband Networks has compiled a series of articles detailing the project and helping to expose the so-called “grassroots” opponents.  We encourage readers to become better acquainted with the underhanded tactics community broadband opponents will use to stop anything that resembles competition.