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.

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 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.

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.

 

Parts of rural Minnesota are teaching the nation a lesson or two about how to deliver rural broadband — form a community co-op and provide it yourself, or wait forever for a commercial provider to deem it sufficiently profitable to deliver a reasonable level of service.

Minnesota’s Broadband Task Force indirectly proved the case for community Internet access with their first official report on the state of broadband in the North Star State.

While the populous Twin Cities are well-provided-for by large cable and phone companies, most of rural Minnesota gets far slower (and spottier) access to telephone company DSL, which is increasingly uncompetitive and inadequate for the 21st century knowledge economy.  Commercial providers have repeatedly told rural Minnesota their 1-3Mbps DSL service is plenty fast enough, at least for those who can purchase the service.  City slickers enjoy speeds of 10Mbps or more in Minneapolis and St. Paul.  But as many more rural residents and small businesses will tell you, DSL just cannot get the job done at current speeds, especially for higher bandwidth applications.

Not all of Minnesota is stuck with second-class Internet access.  Two sections of the state where residents were unwilling to accept the broadband status quo now have speeds that rival anything on offer in Minneapolis or St. Paul, because they decided to provide the service themselves.

Farmers Mutual in Madison, Federated Telephone in Morris, and Paul Bunyan Communications in Bemidji have been running fiber optic cables up and down area streets and delivering next generation broadband to some very happy customers.  All are cooperatives — community-owned providers that put their customers (who also happen to be the owners) ahead of Wall Street shareholder profits.  The result: modern and reliable service, instead of “good enough for you” Internet access at sky-high prices from for-profit phone companies.

Farmers Mutual provides service at speeds up to 20/20Mbps, with faster service forthcoming in the future.  They also believe in an open Internet, free from provider interference.  Just outside of their service area, DSL (where available) often runs at speeds of 1Mbps or less.

Federated Telephone offers a unique Ethernet-based broadband service at 20/20Mbps speeds that advertises unlimited usage — a selling point when larger phone companies like AT&T now place limits on Internet access.  Outside of their service area, many rural Minnesotans are stuck using satellite Internet service or dial-up.

Paul Bunyan Communications goes one step further with a network that already delivers 25Mbps broadband in communities like Bemidji and Grand Rapids (Minn.)  Those speeds are simply unavailable from commercial providers in northern Minnesota.

Minnesota’s broadband story is retold across America.  Urban communities have fast speed, but high prices.  Rural communities have inferior DSL at high prices or nothing at all.  Only about 57 percent of Minnesota households now meet the statewide speed goal of 10/6Mbps service.  Cable operators have no problems achieving 10Mbps download speeds, but 6Mbps upload speeds are very uncommon.  Phone companies cannot reliably achieve either with traditional ADSL service.

The state’s broadband goals are aggressive:

By 2015, the state of Minnesota will:

• a. Be in the top five states of the United States for broadband speed universally accessible to residents and businesses; and,
• b. Be in the top five states for broadband access (availability); and,
• c. Be in the top 15 when compared to countries globally for broadband penetration (adoption).

Community owned co-ops are the most likely to help the state achieve their broadband goals. The state is currently ranked 24th in broadband speed.

Shaw Cable customers in Langley and Aldergrove, B.C., waited as long as four hours on hold to speak to a customer service representative trying to learn when their cable and broadband service would be restored after vandals cut a fiber line.

Days later, hundreds of customers were still without service… and answers.

“When I called [Shaw], I was told there was a four-hour wait to talk to customer service,” area resident Candace Hopkins told CBC News.

That four hour hold time was hardly an isolated case.  Several CBC viewers reported similar experiences, and many simply gave up calling even though their cable service was out for days.

Shaw Cable suspects the vandals were would-be copper thieves, unhappy to discover their efforts would only net them fiber optic cables which have almost no resale value.  But customers suspect the cable cuts have not been a priority for Shaw, leaving customers in the dark about when service would be restored.

CBC News called Shaw customer service and only managed to get a recording, which said nothing about how large the problem was or when it would be fixed, saying only that some service was restored and crews were working on the rest.

Other calls to Shaw’s media relations department from CBC News have not been returned.

Shaw customers are not amused, invading the company’s Twitter account with repeated complaints. Other outages have left customers with similar experiences.  One customer on the Outer Gulf Islands told he’d be waiting up to four hours for help managed to leave his number for a call back.

“The kicker is that after about four hours we received a call from something approximating Shaw,” the customer explains. “I believe that it was a call center in India. To add insult to injury, the voice on the other end of the phone line told me that everything was fine with my line. And, it was. Service had been restored 10 minutes before the call back. When I tried to explain this and asked what the earlier service disruption was about, the voice on the line simply kept repeating that everything was fine on my line.”

Shaw’s hold times are infamous in western Canada.  It is not uncommon to wait at least an hour to speak to a customer service representative as we reported back in September.  Some customers find it quicker to drive to the nearest cable office to arrange for service calls or manage their accounts.  So far, Canadian regulators have done little to pressure Shaw into making improvements.

When service was restored, some customers were brave enough to call Shaw to request outage credits.  “A big mistake,” shares one of our readers.

“The automated voice said there was a two hour hold time and when I finally got through, I was told I couldn’t get a credit because I didn’t report the outage during the outage,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jules who shared this story over his restored Internet service in Aldergrove.

“They didn’t seem to have a good answer when I suggested how difficult that would have been since it took out my Shaw telephone line as well. I got my credit.”

Just a few days after Broadband Reports broke the news AT&T was imposing an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers, evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”

Dave Burstein, a well-known industry analyst who has tracked the broadband universe for years was so miffed about the nonsense he was reading in the Wall Street Journal, he picked up the phone and called the AT&T spokesperson who claimed the company was overburdened by heavy users:

Mark Siegal, AT&T’s top flack, hung up the phone on me when I said his comment to the Wall Street Journal was apparently a lie. It’s prohibitively unlikely their DSL cap “is to ensure the quality of the customer experience” necessary to solve “congestion in certain points of the network and interfering with other people’s access.” I’m certain that far less than 1% of the time do AT&T DSL customers have any impact from congestion. I’m pretty confident it’s less than 1/10th of 1% and probably less than 1/100th of 1%. My sources that wireline congestion on AT&T is minimal include statements from two CTOs of the company. Cheng, now a veteran in D.C., knew the comment was misleading at best. A mantra in D.C. is “wireline may not have congestion but wireless is different.” It was Sunday and perhaps hard to factcheck, but he’ll easily confirm the problem on Monday.

AT&T has long maintained they have a more robust network and cable is the one with “bandwidth hog” problems. But Comcast’s cap was 60% higher than AT&T and Comcast has said they will raise it. AT&T has gone 13 years without caps on their DSL network because they said they didn’t need them. Traffic growth is actually down slightly (Cisco, Odlyzko) so there’s only one reason to impose caps now: their video service, U-Verse, has become a $5B business. They don’t want people to be able to cut the cord and watch all their video over the net. 150 gigabytes is 40-80 hours of U-Verse quality TV, far less than the average U-Verse user watches.

In fact, AT&T is one of America’s largest Internet Service Providers, and maintains an important role in America’s Internet backbone.  As one of the largest providers, AT&T doesn’t worry about broadband traffic like a small wireless ISP does.  Its broadband pipes from the middle-mile to their nationwide network offers near limitless capacity thanks to fiber optic technology.  In fact, AT&T’s theoretical “bottlenecks” occur in the “last mile” of the network, from the phone company’s central switching offices or its interface between a fiber connection and the plain old copper wires that work their way into your home or business.

But first, a word about costs.

We have new evidence from both Burstein and the Internet Overcharging drama unfolding in Canada that providers literally pay pennies per gigabyte of traffic.  In fact, the broadband traffic customers generate represents only 2%-5% of what we pay for broadband in both countries.  Burstein uses some of Craig Moffett’s prolific comments in the media against his own argument for Internet Overcharging.  Moffett, a Wall Street analyst, is not alone when he reports broadband margins are as high as 90%, according to official company filings.  John Hodulik from UBS joins him.

Burstein gives providers’ argued need for increased investment to keep up with demand the benefit of the doubt and is willing to suggest profit margins at a reduced 75%.  In either case, running a large broadband network is a veritable license to print money in North America.  The costs to provide the service keep dropping, and providers keep on raising prices.

Burstein was generous with Comcast when he called their 250GB usage limit imposed in 2008 “fair.”  But as Stop the Cap! has argued, Comcast — like other Internet Overchargers — has not grown the cap over time, even as their costs decline.  In fact, customers are probably lucky the country’s largest cable operator hasn’t reduced it, as providers in Canada have done repeatedly. Burstein calls on Comcast to honor their promise and raise their cap.

Burstein also notes the rest of the world enjoys lower prices, more competition, and often faster service — with providers across the board still enjoying considerable profits.

But why not here?

America’s broadband market is a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every American city.  One cable operator and one telephone company deliver service to the vast majority of American broadband users.  Wireless providers are largely owned by legacy phone companies and strictly limit usage.  Without significant competition, providers can raise prices at will and milk profits to sustain their balance sheets even as other business divisions suffer from a downturned economy or shifting cultural changes.  The “landline” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and cable television provided by cable and phone companies could face cord cutting from consumers watching their favorite shows over their broadband connections.

Burstein tracks the business model:

15 gigabytes/month: The average (mean) user in the U.S., per Cisco’s respected VNI survey and numerous comments from the major companies.

Going Down: Bandwidth usage growth per customer. The rate has been about 30% per year, with the rate slightly falling the last few years. The growth in average usage is actually going down slightly, per Cisco VNI and the MINTS data of Professor Andrew Odlyzko.

Going Down: Capital investment required. In 2009, AT&T cut U-Verse by 1/3rd. In 2010, Verizon cut FiOS by 2/3rds. John Stankey of AT&T has said they will cut U-Verse much further after this year. Fran Shammo of Verizon says “Wireline will continue to come down year over year.” Cablecos have been dropping capex as a % of sales and often in absolute dollars. According to a recent survey by Heavy Reading, 70% of the cable networks have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 already. There’s no significant capital spending beyond that at least until mid-decade. The Columbia University CITI report to the broadband plan aggregated analysts forecast and predicted a drop in overall capital spending on broadband, particularly in wireline. The primary capital spending for wired broadband is behind us, with few significant network buildouts in the next five years or longer.

Going Up: Profit Margins. Prices for broadband have generally been going up in the U.S. since 2007 while costs drop. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and most others have raised their broadband prices and ARPU. They also have (modestly) raised the prices of triple play including broadband, according to Dave Barden of Bank of America. Capex is dropping pretty dramatically while other operating costs are also falling. Customer support costs have gone down as few new customers (who need more support) are added. Modems and other gear continue dropping in price. Costs down, prices up = higher profits. Both Stankey and Shammo pointed to improved margins.

AT&T argues their usage caps are less about the money and more about dealing with network congestion.  But does that play out?

AT&T has a convenient argument to use, which several journalists have come to believe gives the company a track record of being victimized by “heavy users.”  Namely, their network congestion brought about by the flood of iPhone users on AT&T Mobility’s cellular network.  Even if a reporter does not understand the profound differences between a wired and wireless broadband network, they have heard about AT&T’s problems coping with their wireless traffic.

In short, the company underestimated demand from its exclusive deal with Apple for the wildly popular phone, and refused to invest adequately to mitigate overcongested cities.  Instead, it spent millions lobbying for permission to “manage” the traffic with artificially-slowed speeds, usage limits, confiscatory overlimit penalties, and even some equipment to offload wireless users onto home broadband connections (for which AT&T still deducts airtime and data usage from your wireless allowance.)  Robust Wi-Fi also tries to drive customers off of AT&T’s inadequate 3G network.

For home broadband users who will be affected by AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, let’s break them into two separate categories: DSL customers who face a 150GB cap and U-verse customers who will get a 250GB allowance.

AT&T DSL is a legacy product dependent on traditional copper wire phone lines.  Available in many areas unserved by U-verse, this technology typically provides up to 6Mbps service — often slower, sometimes higher.  The distance between the phone company office and one’s home usually determines what speeds customers receive.  In rural areas, 1-3Mbps is often typical.  In some urban areas, higher speeds are sometimes possible.  DSL is not a “shared” technology like cable broadband.  Each DSL customer has their own line between their home and central office (or remote repeater).  From there, a connection from the central office to AT&T’s backbone is made over a middle mile network.

But AT&T’s DSL customers are already constrained by the reduced speeds DSL provides them.  It is unlikely a customer with 3Mbps DSL service is going to present much of a traffic challenge to a multi-billion dollar company unless they purposely under-invest in network upgrades.

Where congestion does exist, it occurs at the central office — usually because the company inadequately provisioned a sufficiently large data pipe to handle the traffic.  Since these circuits are increasingly fiber-based, congestion issues disappear when AT&T uses technology from this century instead of the last.

AT&T argues heavy users are overburdening their DSL lines, but their prescription makes no sense.  The company says, despite the alleged traffic jam, it is more than willing to sell users additional capacity for $10 per 50GB increment.  If AT&T’s aim was to cut congestion, they would be unwilling to sell additional capacity they don’t have to customers who need it.

A usage cap on AT&T’s new U-verse platform makes even less sense and opens a political minefield.

When one pushes away the promotional and marketing glitz AT&T provides when pitching U-verse, you are left looking at just one thing — a high speed broadband connection.  AT&T’s entire platform of television, phone, and broadband all resides on that single, super-speed broadband pipeline.

AT&T has built this super fast pipe with a combination of fiber optic cables and copper phone wires.  It uses fiber, which doesn’t degrade with distance the way copper wire connections do, to reduce the amount of copper phone wiring between your home and AT&T.  With this “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, AT&T can create a robust pipeline which can accommodate multiple television channels, a phone line, and your broadband connection all running concurrently.

AT&T only seeks to limit one part of that connection, however: the broadband service you could theoretically use to bypass AT&T’s television and phone service in favor of another provider.  It’s the same platform — only the services are different.

AT&T claims network congestion is a problem for U-verse as well, which is a controversial claim to make considering AT&T designed U-verse with excess capacity that goes unused to this day.

What does AT&T’s U-verse network look like?

AT&T’s regional offices maintain watch over their U-verse network of TV, Internet, and phone services.  This portion of the network is entirely fiber-based.  From there, fiber extends to individual central offices, part of the company’s middle-mile network.  AT&T’s fiber journey typically ends at large metal cabinets strategically placed in different neighborhoods.  These “Video Ready Access Devices” (VRADs) are probably familiar to you if you live in an AT&T area.  Sometimes derided as “lawn refrigerators,” the huge metal cabinets contain the interface between the fiber optic network and the copper wire telephone lines running to your home.

It’s this “choke point” AT&T tries to claim as a point of congestion.  If enough customers use their connection at the same time, it can “overburden” the network.  But can it, really?

Early adopters of U-verse pestered AT&T engineers about the network as it was constructed and learned a lot about it.

Phil Karn has been a U-verse customer since November 2009 and has become an expert on how his U-verse service works, and importantly how it holds back a considerable amount of available bandwidth.

An AT&T engineer “tried to tell me that the network equipment was like the engine in a sports car. You don’t want to drive it at the red line all the time because that will wear it out. I don’t know if he was told to use that analogy or if he came up with it on his own, but needless to say it’s a pretty silly one. And completely inapplicable,” Karn shares on his website.

He then claimed, rather weakly, that backhaul capacity considerations from the VRAD limit how much can be offered to each individual subscriber. This argument might even have begun to hold water except for the numbers he then provided. The VRADs, he said, are connected by 10 gigabit Ethernet over fiber, and each VRAD serves upwards of 200 homes. Let’s see…10 gigabits over 200 homes is 50 megabits per home. My [U-Verse] link runs at 32.2Mbps.

The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter how fast or slow the backhaul from the VRAD may be. With modern Internet routers and priority [Quality of Service] mechanisms, there is no reason to force capacity to remain idle when a user could be using it. Not unless, of course, you’re trying to maintain the public impression that broadband capacity is really scarce and expensive.

In fact, because few Internet users fully drive their broadband connections on a continuous basis, it can be argued that continuous video streams delivered to television sets left on in the homes of U-verse customers for hours at a time present a bigger “congestion” problem for AT&T, at least at this point in their network.  But the company has no plans to limit television viewing — only their broadband Internet service.

U-verse is AT&T’s answer to slow speed DSL, and part of how the company intends to stay relevant as landline customers depart.  But the company’s business plan depends on a certain percentage of customers subscribing to their pricey television service.  Should AT&T’s broadband customers decide to stop paying for television service, watching everything online instead, that threatens a $5 billion dollar business.

Burstein predicted this scenario when he discussed it with former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

“In 2005, Kevin Martin discussed with me the issue of what he would do if AT&T favored U-verse. I believe he felt he would have to act, but at that point hoped competition would prevent him from facing that decision. Now AT&T’s multi-million dollar über-lobbyist Jim Cicconi has presumably told them [current FCC Chairman] Julius Genachowski is sufficiently under control he won’t do anything about this.”

In the end, many of AT&T’s arguments simply are incoherent.  If only a small handful of AT&T customers are creating such a dilemma for the company it has to inconvenience every customer with a usage limit, AT&T has a much larger problem to contend with.  Furthermore, the company’s existing acceptable use policy already includes provisions for dealing with users that create problems on their network, all without bothering everyone else.