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.

Tiny Ringgold Telephone, which serves 122 square miles of northwestern Georgia, has pulled the plug on the company’s own video IPTV package and is encouraging customers to watch all of their television shows online or through a satellite TV package offered by DISH Network.

Ringgold was in the IPTV business long before AT&T began offering U-verse, having launched video over phone lines back in 2003.  The phone company invested heavily in producing local programming for their customers, including local sports, issues in the news, health and fitness, and educational shows for and about the region.  The hope was that the phone company would give cable subscribers enough reasons to cut the cable cord for good.  They’ve invested heavily to remain on the cutting edge, something uncommon for traditional wireline phone companies.

In 2000, Ringgold announced they would deliver a High Speed Internet connection to every single customer who wanted it throughout their entire service area.  The company has continuously upgraded their facilities, offering traditional copper wire customers bonded DSL service up to 25Mbps and their growing number of fiber customers speeds up to 50/50Mbps.  That’s an enormous difference over other nearby providers, including AT&T, Frontier Communications, and CenturyLink which deliver customers 1-3Mbps DSL with no fiber in sight.  The other alternative is service from Charter Cable, among the worst-rated cable companies in the country.

But that level of innovation isn’t unusual for Ringgold, which has outpaced traditional Bell System phone companies since it was first founded in 1912 with just eight telephone lines.

In 1950, Ringgold was among the first independent companies in Georgia to switch from manual to dial telephones.  By the 1990s, Ringgold realized the future was in fiber optics, and planned to replace a significant amount of copper wiring that had been on phone poles for decades.  The phone company thought it had mastered the ultimate triple-play fiber-optics package of voice, broadband, and television, until their small size got in the way.

Ringgold discovered that “bigger is better” in the pay television business.  The largest cable operators enjoy the best bargaining power for just about everything.  Companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable can use their enormous customer base to negotiate cut rate pricing on programming and equipment and stand-up to greedy programmers that demand excessive payments for programming.  Ringgold discovered they can’t.

Light Reading highlighted the challenges Phil Erli, executive vice president of Ringgold, spoke about recently:

• Ringgold could not cut a deal with equipment vendors that would deliver DVR and HD functionality at a level above that of the local cable company.  Large set top box manufacturers deal in volume, and smaller players like Ringgold are often left with inferior technology at prices higher than large cable companies pay for the most advanced equipment available.  Erli tried to innovate a new approach using Microsoft’s Mediaroom, but discovered that required a large number of servers too costly for a small phone company to consider;
• Programming costs were completely out of line.  Volume discounting delivers enormous savings, if you are a large-sized national provider.  Large cable companies pay a fraction of the prices independent providers pay for programming, and local broadcast stations held the company hostage on retransmission consent agreements.  Erli noted the local NBC station, presumably in nearby Chattanooga, demanded an incredible $5.25 a month per subscriber.  That rate was so high, it would turn the company’s video venture unprofitable.  Even worse, Erli relates, “these weren’t negotiations, they told me what we would pay.”  Erli realized that just one programmer could make or break Ringgold’s video service profits;
• The company’s video lineup, due to wholesale costs, was inferior to that offered by the local cable company.

Ringgold's broadband network is superior to anything the competition offers in northwestern Georgia.

With these challenges, the phone company decided enough was enough and dropped its video package, redirecting customers to DISH Network for satellite-TV, and more recently to online Internet video as an alternative to pay television.

Something you won't likely see from your cable company.

While most broadband providers treat online video as a parasite, Ringgold sees it as the ultimate business opportunity to reinvent themselves through their broadband service — selling super high speed access to content that someone else provides and has to worry about.

They’re considering a new customer promotion that includes a Roku, Apple TV, or Clearleap-powered set-top box to integrate broadband connections with television sets.  The company is even educating customers about the growing number of programs available for free (or with a low cost subscription) online with an interactive web tool.

Ringgold’s new solution for online video also includes some small revenge on high programming costs, giving subscribers an integrated over-the-air antenna system that can pick up nearly a dozen HD channels, including that NBC station, for free.

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

Here is something you don’t see every day: Ringgold Telephone encourages its customers to get online and watch TV shows for free.  (1 minute)

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.

While British Telecom and Virgin rely on partial fiber networks to deliver faster broadband, they can’t touch the speeds on offer from Hyperoptic, a new start-up fiber t0 the home provider competing for broadband customers in London.  For just under $80 a month, customers can purchase the UK’s first 1Gbps broadband offering, which lets you download an HD movie in about 40 seconds.

Hyperoptic’s fast speeds come from the fact it is a true fiber-to-the-home provider.  As a startup, the company is being very selective about where it is deploying service, starting with housing estates and multi-dwelling units where a significant number of customers can be reached within a single building or complex.  The first completed fiber build serves 133 apartments in a building in Battersea.  The company plans to extend the service to the rest of the complex in the coming months, and their effort has been aided by the fact the building is already “fiber-ready,” with pre-existing fiber faceplates ready for hookup.  Hyperoptic is expected to first focus on more modern housing estates that have already made accommodations for modern telecommunications, be it coaxial cable, Ethernet, or fiber.

The company is competing with providers who already claim to deliver a fiber experience, but the company founder says those claims are based on half-truths.

“We are basing our platform on bringing fiber direct to the customer,” Hyperoptic founder and chairman Boris Ivanovic told PC Pro. “There’s been a lot of different marketing speak going on in the UK talking about what real fiber is and everyone is taking credit for doing fiber. But BT Infinity and Virgin – what they are doing is only partial fiber, and what we are doing here is bringing fiber into the buildings and directly to customers and that allows us to deliver 1Gbps.”

Hyperoptic’s services are priced to aggressively compete with other providers:

• 20/20Mbps:  $20/mo
• 100/100Mbps:  $40/mo
• 1000/1000Mbps: $80/mo

A $19.95 phone line rental charge and $64 installation fee applies.