Home » Frontier Communications Corp » Recent Articles:

The Better Business Bureau Renews Its “F” Rating for Frontier Communications, Issues Special Alert

Phillip Dampier February 13, 2020 Broadband Speed, Consumer News, Frontier, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband Comments Off on The Better Business Bureau Renews Its “F” Rating for Frontier Communications, Issues Special Alert

Some Frontier customers worry the company’s extended service outages are “a matter of life and death.” WSAW-TV in Wisconsin is one of several media outlets reporting on the problems at Frontier.

The Better Business Bureau recently renewed its “F” rating for Frontier Communications, issuing this special consumer alert along the way:

On October 17, 2019 and November 21, 2019, BBB attempted to contact Frontier Communications Corp. regarding a high volume and pattern of serious complaints. BBB received 11,803 complaints in the past 36 months alleging customer service issues, missing appointments, decline in services previously handled by other providers who Frontier has assumed, billing issues including additional service charges for periods once the consumer has cancelled services. The business failed to respond to one of these complaints and 76 others were not resolved through BBB’s complaint process.

BBB notified Frontier Communications Corp. about the pattern of complaints and asked the business to voluntarily cooperate in eliminating the pattern by providing a written response outlining the specific steps it would implement in order to avoid similar complaints in the future. BBB also requested general information including copies of refund policies, the names & full contact information of the business’ principal officers and responsible management, copies of its promotional and advertising materials, the physical address of its principal office, copies of required competency licensing and a completed BBB Standard Business Questionnaire.

In response to the pattern of complaints, Frontier Communications Corp. provided the following response:

Frontier’s primary value is putting our customers first. Our fiber network and large rural copper network serves more than 4M customers.

Despite these assets and the dedication of nearly 20,000 employees, we have disappointed customers, primarily due to two very large acquisitions. The first in Connecticut with AT&T  and the second in California, Texas and Florida with Verizon. As the BBB points out, many of the 11K (as of December 2019) complaints made on this platform resulted from the transition of services in those two transactions.  We have worked diligently to address the issues raised and restore credibility. Issues related to those transactions have been resolved.

We have a new President and CEO who is a true champion of customer satisfaction, and in just a few weeks he has crisscrossed the country to hammer home the need for accountability and reliability and flawless customer service. We need to keep things simple and deliver on our commitments.

Some improvements include updated our website to include more information about how to resolve concerns and whom to contact. Frontier has invested in product and operational innovations that are driving more improvements in our service. Our internal resolution task force continues to remain engaged, reviewing customer service processes and acting on lessons learned to become better guides for, and providers of service to our customers and communities.

Frontier Communications: New Logo, Same Old Service

Phillip Dampier January 11, 2016 Broadband Speed, Consumer News, Frontier 1 Comment

frontier

Frontier Communications is making a splash in 2016 with a new logo and a press release explaining it:

Frontier Communications Corporation today announced a new logo. The evolved look reflects a transformed typeface, a brighter color palette, and a reimagining of the arc to represent the transfer of data and the importance of connectivity. The logo also uses the name Frontier Communications, instead of just Frontier, to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Today’s launch comes as the 81-year-old company prepares to close a $10.54 billion acquisition of Verizon’s wireline, broadband and FiOS assets in California, Florida and Texas at the end of March.

“2016 is the year of transformation for Frontier,” said Cecilia McKenney, Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer, who oversees marketing for the company. “Our company is growing and expanding into new markets: the perfect time to showcase a new logo. We are also in the process of refining a brand promise to be unveiled upon the closing of the $10.54 billion acquisition from Verizon at the end of this quarter.”

Unfortunately, nothing was mentioned about using the new logo as an opportunity to commit to significantly better and faster DSL service for large parts of Frontier’s legacy service areas, still serviced by copper wire networks that are often incapable of delivering anything faster than 3Mbps service.

“A logo change will not bring me usable Internet service at night,” said Ralph Tennant whose wife has struggled with Frontier DSL in her office for years in West Virginia.

“We can either get usage-capped Internet from Suddenlink or unlimited and unusable Internet from Frontier,” said Tennant. “Two bad choices not made better by a pretty new logo.”

Similar to how 3D office signs help companies make a statement in their spaces, Frontier is attempting to create a lasting impression with its reimagined logo. A bold new identity can communicate a company’s evolution and forward-thinking approach, much like these modern signs do for businesses aiming to stand out in a competitive market.

Comcast, Frontier: It’s Too ‘Hilly and Woodsy’ to Bring Broadband to Rural Connecticut

no signalAn aversion of open, hilly landscapes and trees is apparently responsible for keeping residents of rural Connecticut from getting broadband service from the state’s two dominant providers — Comcast and Frontier Communications.

In the Litchfield Hills of northwestern Connecticut, you can visit some of the state’s finest antique shops and Revolutionary War-era inns, tour vineyards and even establish roots in the Upper Naugatuck Valley in towns like Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Goshen, Hartland, Harwinton, Litchfield, Morris, New Hartford, Norfolk, Torrington, and Winchester. Just leave your cellphone, tablet, and personal computer behind because chances are good you will find yourself in a wireless dead spot and Internet-free zone.

Obtaining even a smidgen of cell phone service often means leaning out a second story window or worse, climbing the nearest church steeple. The wealthiest residents, often second-homeowners from New York or California, can afford to spend several thousand dollars to entice the cable company to extend a coaxial cable their way or buy commercial broadband service at eye-popping prices from Frontier Communications, which acquired AT&T’s wireline network in the state. But for many, dial-up Internet remains the only affordable or available option.

Despite the area’s significant number of high income residents ready and willing to pay for service, Comcast and Frontier blame hilly terrain and dense woods for staying away. Those excuses get little regard from residents who suggest it is all about the money, not the landscape.

Northwest Connecticut region is shown in green and the Litchfield Hills region in blue.

Broadband-challenged areas in northwest Connecticut are shown in green and the often “No signal” and “No Internet” Litchfield Hills region is shown in blue.

Despite the need for service, deregulation largely allows cable and phone companies to decide where to offer broadband service, and arguments about fulfilling a public need and performing a community service don’t get far with Wall Street and shareholders that constantly pressure companies to deliver profits, not expensive investments that may never pay off.

State Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury) told the Register Citizen News the status quo is not acceptable — telecommunications companies are not doing enough to build out their networks.

“You just can’t say it’s the topography and walk away,” she told the newspaper. “If electricity companies were deregulated like this there would be no electricity in my district.”

Comcast spokeswoman Laura Brubaker Crisco claims the company extended cable service nearly 62 miles in northwest Connecticut since 2005 (ten years ago) and completed nearly 100 projects extending fiber more than 10 miles in the past two years. But many of those projects overhauled Comcast’s existing middle-mile network and extended cable service to profitable new markets serving commercial customers, especially office parks and commercial storefronts. Comcast’s other priority was to reach new high-income residential developments being built as the area continues to grow. Rural customers who could not meet Comcast’s Return On Investment formula in 2005 are still unlikely to have service in 2015 unless population density increases in their immediate area.

Connecticut's effort to extend gigabit fiber statewide is dismissed as a waste of money by incumbent cable operators.

Connecticut’s effort to extend gigabit fiber statewide is dismissed as a waste of money by incumbent cable operators.

Crisco admits Comcast does not wire low density areas and isn’t surprised other providers won’t either.

Frontier prefers to blame the area’s topography for keeping broadband out.

David Snyder, vice president for engineering for the east region of Frontier Communications, told the newspaper “it’s just natural the investment and the time become more challenging.”

Frontier does say it has expanded broadband to 40,000 additional households in Connecticut since taking over for AT&T a year ago. But nobody seems to know exactly who can get broadband in the state and who cannot. The have-nots are the most likely to complain, and those businesses that serve visitors are in peril of losing business without offering reasonable Wi-Fi or Internet access. Rural families with school-age children are also at risk from having their kids fall behind those that can get broadband.

Wireless Internet Service Providers, which offer long-range wireless broadband in rural areas, complain the federal government is wasting money on studies instead of helping to underwrite solutions that can quickly bring Internet access to the rural masses.

Others believe talking to Frontier and Comcast is futile. They prefer to follow the lead of western Massachusetts, where 24 small communities across the region have joined forces to build a public fiber to the home broadband network. One estimate suggests 22 Connecticut towns covering 200,000 residents could be reached with a bond-financed fiber network completed by 2018. That network would likely reach more unserved customers than Frontier or Comcast will elect to serve over the next three years combined.

A separate effort to establish gigabit fiber broadband across the state — the CT Gig Project — promptly ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, primarily from incumbent telecommunications companies that refuse to offer that service now. With a threat to current profitable business models, it was not unexpected to hear opposition from Paul Cianelli, CEO of the New England Cable & Telecom Association — a cable company lobbying group.

He called public broadband unnecessary and “potentially disastrous.” He wants assurances no government subsidies or loan guarantees are given to the project. He also said providing gigabit service was unnecessary and faster Internet speeds were not important to the majority of customers in the state. Public broadband proponents respond Cianelli should tell that to the residents of Litchfield Hills and other unserved and underserved communities.

Frontier Dismisses Its FiOS Operation: “It Came Along With the Deal, It Was What It Was”

Phillip Dampier January 26, 2011 Consumer News, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Frontier, Video 3 Comments

Ft. Wayne, Indiana

Outrage over enormous price increases for Frontier’s fiber optic television service in Indiana are being met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders by one company executive, who seemed to dismiss as an afterthought the state-of-the-art FiOS network it acquired from Verizon.

Frontier Communications’ president of its Midwest division, Don Banowetz, has been making the rounds with Fort Wayne-area reporters over news the phone company intends to boost prices for its FiOS TV service by $30 a month for most customers.

But Banowetz has done little to defend the price increases or the fiber network the company acquired with its purchase of landlines from Verizon.

“Look, we bought the whole company, right? All the assets. The FiOS part was part of that, so it was part of the deal,” said Banowetz.  “We couldn’t ride the previous arrangement. So in essence, it was what it was.”

WANE-TV reporter Aishah Hasnie seemed stunned with Banowetz’s response, finally asking what customers should do if they can’t afford the rate increases.

“Get DirecTV,” came the reply.

Starting February 18th, customers who subscribe to a FiOS TV basic package will see their rates go by up $12 per month. Customers who subscribe to other FiOS TV packages will see a $30 increase. The increase does not affect customers under a price protection plan.

That kind of price increase would normally provoke blanched faces in a corporate boardroom over fears of a mass exodus of customers.  But not Frontier.

“The FiOS TV part of our business is actually a very small part of our business. It’s about three percent of our revenues,” said Banowetz.

But Frontier’s satellite package, pitched as an alternative, brings plenty of tricks, traps and other hidden fees inside the box.  In addition to signing a two-year service commitment with DirecTV, customers also have to sign a three-year “price protection agreement” with the phone company, which is another way of saying “contract.”  The total price adds up:

  • Customers opting for Frontier’s “free TV” promotion will face a three-year contract term with a $400 early cancellation fee;
  • Frontier’s satellite TV promotion has a three-year contract term with a $300 early cancellation fee;
  • “Care and handling” fees amounting to $69.99 apply to the “free TV” offer;
  • A $34.99 Frontier “video setup fee” applies to customers getting satellite service from the phone company;
  • DirecTV requires customers to pass a credit check and sign a contract with a 24 month commitment;
  • If you change any aspect of your programming package, you may forfeit the “free service” offered as part of the promotion.

In northwest Washington state, Frontier’s rate increases are alienating the company with one member of the state’s congressional delegation.

U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) sent a letter to Frontier complaining about the huge rate hikes, telling the company it needs to find better alternatives for many of his constituents who cannot install a satellite dish.

“Folks in Northwest Washington are concerned about the future of cable service offered through Frontier Communications, and rightly so,” said Rep. Larsen. “I am calling on Frontier to offer consumers better and more affordable options for cable service in the region.”

Rep. Larsen’s letter to Frontier Communications:

Rep. Larsen

Dear Mr. Mason:

I am writing to express concerns that I share with many of my constituents in Northwest Washington about Frontier’s plans for cable service in our region. The Everett Herald recently published an article, “Switch to a Dish or pay more, Frontier tells FIOS customers,” that highlights some of the problems that people in Northwest Washington have with Frontier’s announcement that it will alter the existing framework of its fiber-optic television service. Specifically, Frontier’s decision to offer its customers a choice between continuing with their current FIOS television service—with a rate increase of 46 percent or switching their cable television service to the satellite provider DirecTV.

I am concerned with Frontier’s decision to substantially raise its cable television rates for its existing customers in the Pacific Northwest. Last September, Frontier Communications Chief Executive Maggie Wilderotter was quoted in The Oregonian newspaper stating that Frontier would distinguish itself from larger cable companies by holding down prices for its customers. I find it troubling that less than six months later Frontier is dramatically raising its cable television rates.

Additionally, it is problematic that Frontier has not offered an adequate alternative to those customers who live in apartment complexes where the installation of satellite dishes is prohibited and therefore cannot take advantage of the option to switch their cable service to DirecTV. — Rick Larsen, United States Representative, Washington State, 2nd District

Stop the Cap! reader John says he has sent a letter to CEO Maggie Wilderotter protesting the rate hikes and imploring the company to find a programming co-op to join.  Smaller providers need not pay “rack prices” for cable programming.  Municipal providers, family owned companies, and small independent cable operators have enjoyed substantial programming discounts through group buying power.  Frontier apparently is trying to negotiate for video programming on its own, a fatal mistake that has brought on this month’s rate hike.

If you want to help educate Frontier about how to run their business properly, here is their contact information:

Frontier Communications Corporation
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT 06905-1390
Phone: 203-614-5600
Fax: 203-614-4602
[email protected]

When writing or calling, don’t forget to tell them to abandon their Internet Overcharging schemes — no usage caps or limits on Frontier broadband, or you will take your business somewhere else.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Fort Wayne Frontier Frustration 1-24-11.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne delves into Frontier Frustration as angry customers react to news of enormous rate increases.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Tries to Sell Current FiOS Fiber Customers on “Upgrading” to Satellite TV

Frontier's Fiber Fantasies

Frontier FiOS is the fiber-to-home network that gets no respect, at least from the company that now runs it.

What Verizon considers its crown jewel, Frontier Communications considers an afterthought. Since buying up several million landlines from Verizon, Frontier has reluctantly adopted the fiber-to-the-home service already up and running in a handful of areas Verizon sold off.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter said Frontier would not increase pricing on its services, in fact stating they had not had a price increase in several years.  But just months after winning approval of the deal with Verizon, Frontier stunned customers and regulators with one of the largest rate increases ever seen in the cable television industry: a $30 monthly increase for basic cable.

Understandably, angry customers have been calling Frontier in droves demanding an explanation.

Stop the Cap! reader Betsy was floored when a Frontier representative actually suggested to her its FiOS network wasn’t worth the trouble, and the representative was telling all of the customers calling they should “upgrade” to satellite TV instead.

“How do you even respond to that?  I thought I heard her wrong — I had the speakerphone on, but after the Frontier rep said it, my 87 year old mother who was listening hollered ‘that’s a bunch of bull****’ from the other room,'” Betsy shares.

“My mother almost never swears,” Betsy tells Stop the Cap! “But she was living with us when our family endured satellite’s rain fade, the neighbor’s trees, the picture freezes, and the equipment issues for almost ten years — why would we go back to that?”

In fact, it was Verizon’s FiOS network which attracted the Washington State family to take the satellite dish off the roof and toss it.  So it came as quite a shock to have a Frontier representative try and get her to rip a state of the art fiber network out to go back to DirecTV.

Frontier wants their customers to give up on this...

“Does anyone at this company have a clue what they are doing?  Using their logic, we should go back to dial or hand crank telephones,” Betsy concludes.

We wondered if this was a fluke, but then we found Frontier telling customers nearly the same thing in Ft. Wayne, Ind.

The Journal-Gazette reports Frontier’s rate hike in the Pacific Northwest foreshadowed similar rate hikes likely in the midwestern city that is Frontier’s second largest market, behind Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications FiOS cable customers could be facing a monthly increase of $12 to $30 in coming weeks.

Many of the affected subscribers have a $99 bundle for monthly TV, telephone and Internet services. As an alternative, Frontier will offer DirecTV satellite service free for the rest of the year for customers paying for telephone and Internet, a spokesman said Wednesday.

“We will be making more information available by Tuesday of next week,” said Matthew Kelley, adding that existing customer contracts will be honored.

“With DirecTV, it really is a chance to get three services for the price of two. The channel lineups are pretty comparable.”

DirecTV offers more than 200 channels, Kelley said.

...and "upgrade" to this instead.

“Don’t sign me up,” Betsy writes when we showed her the Journal article.  “Channel lineups don’t mean much when you can’t watch them.”

Betsy’s satellite dish took a beating not only from the weather and efforts to find a clear view to the sky, but also from some birds advertising for a mate.

“The woodpeckers just loved to attack the dish — the jack-hammering sound could be heard all over the neighborhood when they got going,” she said.

Frontier’s Kelley admitted the company is small potatoes in the cable world, and simply can’t compete for good programming prices.

But even those of us at Stop the Cap! know that smaller players need not negotiate programming contracts themselves — they can join one of several groups that pool smaller providers together to grab substantial volume discounts.  Municipal players manage to find reasonable cable programming prices, but a multi-state corporate player like Frontier apparently cannot.

Bruce Getts, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 723, shrugged off Frontier’s FiOS failures.

Getts, whose union represents 700 installers, repair technicians, customer service representatives and dispatchers at Frontier told the newspaper more people are going online to watch TV anyway, so the impact of the price hike might well become moot.

Unfortunately, Frontier is the same company testing an Internet Overcharging scheme in the Sacramento area that makes online viewing an expensive proposition, even more expensive than Frontier’s FiOS rate hikes.

“I think people will rue the day they let these bozos take over our phone service,” Betsy says.  “It looks like our family has a reason to cancel service with Frontier and head to cable.”

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!