The Federal Communications Commission’s July report on America’s broadband speeds shows virtually every major national provider, with the exception of Frontier Communications, made significant improvements in delivering the broadband service and speeds they advertise to customers.

Utilizing thousands of volunteer testers agreeing to host a router that performs automated speed tests and other sampling measurements (full disclosure: your editor is a volunteer participant), the FCC speed measurement program is one of the most comprehensive independent broadband assessments in the country.

Hourly Sustained Download Speeds as a Percentage of Advertised, by Provider—April 2012 Test Data

The FCC found Cablevision’s improvements last year paid off handsomely for the company, which now effectively ties with Verizon Communication’s FiOS fiber-to-the-home service for delivering promised speeds during peak usage times. The cable operator was embarrassed in 2011 when the FCC found Cablevision broadband customers’ speeds plummeted during Internet use prime time. Those problems have since been corrected with infrastructure upgrades — particularly important for a cable operator that features near-ubiquitous competition from Verizon’s fiber network.

“This report demonstrates our commitment to delivering more than 100 percent of the speeds we advertise to our broadband customers – over the entire day and during peak hours – in addition to free access to the nation’s largest Wi-Fi network and other valuable product features and enhancements,” said Amalia O’Sullivan, Cablevision’s vice president of broadband operations.

Verizon also blew its own horn in a press statement released this afternoon.

“Verizon’s FiOS service continues to demonstrate its mastery of broadband speed, reliability and consistency for consumers as represented in today’s FCC-SamKnows residential broadband report,” said Mike Ritter, chief marketing officer for Verizon’s consumer and mass market business unit. “The FCC’s findings reaffirm the results from the 2011 report, which found that FiOS provides blazing-fast and sustained upstream and downstream speeds even during peak usage periods. This year’s results also show once again that FiOS Internet customers are receiving speeds that meet or exceed those we advertise, adding even more value to the customer experience.”

Average Peak Period Sustained Download and Upload Speeds as a Percentage of Advertised, by Provider—April 2012 Test Data

Cable operators’ investments in DOCSIS 3 technology also allowed their broadband networks to perform well even as broadband usage continues to grow. Comcast delivered 103% of promised speeds during peak usage, Time Warner Cable – 96%, and Cox – 95%.

Just one nationwide provider lost ground in the last year — Frontier Communications, whose DSL service has grown more congested than ever, with insufficient investment in network upgrades apparent by the company’s dead-last results.

Frontier managed 81% of promised speeds in 2011, partly thanks to its inherited fiber to the home network. This year, it managed only 79%.

Frontier performed adequately for customers choosing its lowest 1Mbps speed tier. It also performed well in areas where its fiber network can sustain much faster speeds. The biggest problems show up for Frontier’s DSL customers buying service at speeds of 3-10Mbps. At peak times, network congestion brings those speeds down.

On average, the FCC found fiber to the home service delivers the best broadband performance, followed by cable broadband, and then telephone company DSL. Five ISPs now routinely deliver nearly one hundred percent or greater of the speed advertised to the consumer even during time periods when bandwidth demand is at its peak. In the August 2011 Report, only two ISPs met this level of performance. In 2011, the average ISP delivered 87 percent of advertised download speed during peak usage periods; in 2012, that jumped to 96 percent. In other words, consumers today are experiencing performance more closely aligned with what is advertised than they experienced one year ago.

The FCC report also found that outlier performers in the 2011 study, with the exception of Frontier, worked hard to make their differences in performance disappear. Last year, the standard deviation from promised broadband speeds was 14.4 percent. This year it is 12.2 percent.

Peak Period Sustained Download Performance, by Provider—April 2012 Test Data

The FCC also found consumers are gravitating towards higher-priced, higher-speed broadband service. Last year’s average broadband speed tier was 11.1Mbps. This year it is 14.3Mbps, almost 30% higher. Along with faster speeds comes more usage. Customers paying for more speed expect to use their broadband connections more, and the FCC found they do.

Overall, the FCC was encouraged to see broadband speed tiers on the increase, some to 100Mbps or higher.

Highlights from the report:

• Actual versus advertised speeds. The August 2011 Report showed that the ISPs included in the Report were, on average, delivering 87 percent of advertised speeds during the peak consumer usage hours of weekdays from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm local time. The July 2012 Report finds that ISP performance has improved overall, with ISPs delivering on average 96 percent of advertised speeds during peak intervals, and with five ISPs routinely meeting or exceeding advertised rates.
• Sustained download speeds as a percentage of advertised speeds. The average actual sustained download speed during the peak period was calculated as a percentage of the ISP’s advertised speed. This calculation was done for each speed tier offered by each ISP.
  • Results by technology:
    • On average, during peak periods DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 84 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 99 percent of advertised speeds, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 117 percent of advertised speeds. This compared with 2011 results showing performance levels of 82 percent for DSL, 93 percent for cable, and 114 percent for fiber. All technologies improved in 2012.
    • Peak period speeds decreased from 24-hour average speeds by 0.8 percent for fiber-to-the-home services, 3.4 percent for DSL-based services and 4.1 percent for cable-based services. This compared with 0.4 percent for fiber services, 5.5 percent for DSL services and 7.3 percent for cable services in 2011.
  • Results by ISP:
    • Average peak period download speeds varied from a high of 120 percent of advertised speed to a low of 77 percent of advertised speed. This is a dramatic improvement from last year where these numbers ranged from a high of 114 percent to a low of 54 percent.
    • In 2011, on average, ISPs had a 6 percent decrease in delivered versus advertised download speed between their 24 hour average and their peak period average. In 2012, average performance improved, and there was only a 3 percent decrease in performance between 24 hour and peak averages.
• Sustained upload speeds as a percentage of advertised speeds. With the exception of one provider, upload speeds during peak periods were 95 percent or better of advertised speeds. On average, across all ISPs, upload speed was 107 percent of advertised speed. While this represents improvement over the 103 percent measured for 2011, upload speeds have not been a limiting factor in performance and most ISPs last year met or exceeded their advertised upload speeds. Upload speeds showed little evidence of congestion with little variance between 24 hour averages and peak period averages.
  • Results by technology: On average, fiber-to-the-home services delivered 106 percent, DSL-based services delivered 103 percent, and cable-based services delivered 110 percent of advertised upload speeds. These compare with figures from 2011 of 112 percent for fiber, 95 percent for DSL, and 108 percent for cable.
  • Results by ISP: Average upload speeds among ISPs ranged from a low of 91 percent of advertised speed to a high of 122 percent of advertised speed. In 2011, this range was from a low of 85 percent to a high of 125 percent.
• Latency. Latency is the time it takes for a packet of data to travel from one designated point to another in a network, commonly expressed in terms of milliseconds (ms). Latency can be a major controlling factor in overall performance of Internet services. In our tests, latency is defined as the round-trip time from the consumer’s home to the closest server used for speed measurement within the provider’s network. We were not surprised to find latency largely unchanged from last year, as it primarily depends upon factors intrinsic to a specific architecture and is largely outside the scope of improvement if networks are appropriately engineered. In 2012, across all technologies, latency averaged 31 milliseconds (ms), as opposed to 33 ms measured in 2011.
  • During peak periods, latency increased across all technologies by 6.5 percent, which represents a modest drop in performance. In 2011 this figure was 8.7 percent.
    • Results by technology:
      • Latency was lowest in fiber-to-the-home services, and this finding was true across all fiber-to-the-home speed tiers.
      • Fiber-to-the-home services provided 18 ms round-trip latency on average, while cable-based services averaged 26 ms, and DSL-based services averaged 43 ms. This compares to 2011 figures of 17 ms for fiber, 28 ms for cable and 44 ms for DSL.
    • Results by ISP: The highest average round-trip latency for an individual service tier among ISPs was 70.2 ms, while the lowest average latency within a single service tier was 12.6 ms. This compares to last year’s maximum latency of 74.8 ms and minimum of 14.5 ms.
• Effect of burst speed techniques. Some cable-based services offer burst speed techniques, marketed under names such as “PowerBoost,” which temporarily allocate more bandwidth to a consumer’s service. The effect of burst speed techniques is temporary—it usually lasts less than 15 to 20 seconds—and may be reduced by other broadband activities occurring within the consumer household. Burst speed is not equivalent to sustained speed. Sustained speed is a measure of long-term performance. Activities such as large file transfers, video streaming, and video chat require the transfer of large amounts of information over long periods of time. Sustained speed is a better measure of how well such activities may be supported. However, other activities such as web browsing or gaming often require the transfer of moderate amounts of information in a short interval of time. For example, a transfer of a web page typically begins with a consumer clicking on the page reference and ceases when the page is fully downloaded. Such services may benefit from burst speed techniques, which for a period of seconds will increase the transfer speed. The actual effect of burst speed depends on a number of factors explained more fully below.
  • Burst speed techniques increased short-term download performance by as much as 112 percent during peak periods for some speed tiers. The benefits of burst techniques are most evident at intermediate speeds of around 8 to 15 Mbps and appear to tail off at much higher speeds. This compares to 2011 results with maximum performance increases of approximately 50 percent at rates of 6 to 7 Mbps with tail offs in performance beyond this.
• Web Browsing, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and Streaming Video.
  • Web browsing. In specific tests designed to mimic basic web browsing—accessing a series of web pages, but not streaming video or using video chat sites or applications—the total time needed to load a page decreased with higher speeds, but only up to about 10 Mbps. Latency and other factors limited response time starting around speed tiers of 10 Mbps and higher. For these high speed tiers, consumers are unlikely to experience much if any improvement in basic web browsing from increased speed–i.e., moving from a 10 Mbps broadband offering to a 25 Mbps offering. This is comparable to results obtained in 2011 and suggests intrinsic factors (e.g. effects of latency, protocol limitations) limit overall performance at higher speeds. It should be noted that this is from the perspective of a single user with a browser and that higher speeds may provide significant advantages in a multi-user household or where a consumer is using a specific application that may be able to benefit from a higher speed tier.
  • VoIP. VoIP services, which can be used with a data rate as low as 100 kilobits per second (kbps) but require relatively low latency, were adequately supported by all of the service tiers discussed in this Report. However, VoIP quality may suffer during times when household bandwidth is shared by other services. The VoIP measurements utilized for this Report were not designed to detect such effects.
  • Streaming Video. 2012 test results suggest that video streaming will work across all technologies tested, though the quality of the video that can be streamed will depend upon the speed tier. For example, standard definition video is currently commonly transmitted at speeds from 1 Mbps to 2 Mbps. High quality video can demand faster speeds, with full HD (1080p) demanding 5 Mbps or more for a single stream. Consumers should understand the requirements of the streaming video they want to use and ensure that their chosen broadband service tier will meet those requirements, including when multiple members of a household simultaneously want to watch streaming video on separate devices. For the future, video content delivery companies are researching ultra high definition video services (e.g. 4K technology which has a resolution of 12 Megapixels per frame versus present day 1080p High Definition television with a 2 Megapixel resolution), which would require higher transmission speeds.

Year by Year Comparison of Sustained Actual Download Speed as a Percentage of Advertised Speed (2011/2012)

West Virginia has returned to broadband mapping the old-fashioned way, with local volunteers fanning out across various areas of the Eastern Panhandle to get a true picture of what broadband service is like on the ground.

The Region 9 Planning and Development Council is helping coordinate the project, currently surveying residents in Berkeley, Jefferson, and Morgan counties. Residents and area businesses can complete a 22-question survey online or on paper, with copies available at most area public libraries.

The Council is trying to ascertain what specific neighborhoods still lack broadband service and also asks current broadband customers to rate the performance of their current provider — like Frontier Communications or a local cable operator. GIS analyst Matthew Mullenax told the Herald-Mail the survey gives a chance for customers to express their views about the speed of their connection, how reliable the service is, and how much it costs.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council is effectively running a mapping “do-over,” to replace the highly-criticized broadband map originally drawn by Connect West Virginia, a state chapter of Connected Nation, that suggested 90-95% of the state had access to broadband when it was produced over three years ago.

Connected Nation’s 2008 map has been criticized for being over-optimistic about broadband availability in West Virginia.

Connected Nation has direct ties to some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, and despite its non-profit status, heavily lobbies legislators on broadband-related issues. The group largely relies on data voluntarily supplied by providers themselves, and critics accuse the group of doing little to verify the accuracy of that data. As a result, states are left with inaccurate, over-optimistic maps that suggest broadband availability is not a problem.

Broadband mapping projects can cost taxpayers millions, paid for by federal grants earmarked for mapping projects. But in communities like Paw Paw, W.V., the costs of not having broadband are just as high for local residents who find good-paying technology jobs largely unavailable in the community, which lacks adequate broadband service.

Mullenex hopes once an accurate map can be drawn, the state can create a strategic plan to push for broadband expansion in areas where service is lacking. The Council hopes its efforts will help pinpoint the areas of greatest need, and direct federal and state grant funding to improve broadband service for affected communities.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council released this 2012 map. Areas marked in dark green have no broadband service of any kind, including wireless mobile broadband.

Frontier Communications has agreed to bring ADSL broadband service to more of its rural customers, in return for collecting $775 per impacted household from the FCC’s new Connect America Fund, designed to help defray expenses associated with expanding broadband access.

Frontier appears to be the first major phone company in the country to sign on to the new broadband subsidy program funded by telephone ratepayers through a surcharge on their monthly bills.

“Today’s announcement by Frontier Communications represents the beginning of that new deployment: approximately 200,000 unserved rural Americans will get broadband for the first time,” said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. “I applaud Frontier Communications for stepping up to the plate with its commitment to accelerate broadband build-out by increasing private investment in rural communities, in partnership with the Connect America Fund.”

The FCC will hand Frontier nearly $72 million in subsidies to help the company deploy DSL broadband in areas currently deemed not profitable enough to serve. Frontier says it expects to bring service to 92,876 new households across their national service area that never had broadband service before. The company specifically mentions expansions in Michigan, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia, but says customers in at least half of the states where it provides service will benefit from the broadband expansion funding.

Frontier claims it currently offers 80 percent of its customers broadband service, in part thanks to an investment of more than $1.5 billion by the company over the last two years, according to Kathleen Quinn Abernathy, executive vice president of external affairs.

Genachowski

Frontier is a major provider of traditional ADSL broadband service in its rural service areas, typically offering customers 1-3Mbps service. Customers in larger communities can purchase DSL service at speeds closer to 10Mbps, and the company also sells fiber to the home broadband over its acquired FiOS network in parts of the Pacific Northwest and Fort Wayne, Ind.

Under the terms of the Connect America Fund, participating providers must offer customers at least 4/1Mbps service, which means Frontier will need to make some upgrades in its rural network — most likely reducing the length of copper wiring between its central offices and customers.

Frontier has faced challenges maintaining broadband service in some areas, especially in states where the company acquired aging infrastructure from Verizon Communications. West Virginia, where Frontier is the dominant telephone company after Verizon left the state, is still suffering the after-effects of a derecho windstorm nearly two weeks ago. Frontier has brought in repair crews from as far away as New York to assist in clearing thousands of outage reports.

The company has also gotten some justice after Boone County authorities arrested two men for generator thefts. Frontier has been using generators to keep phone service up and running in areas without electricity, but has been victimized by generator thefts across the state. At least six other generators were stolen in New Martinsville in Wetzel County yesterday.

Frontier has a tip line for anyone with information about stolen equipment or copper theft: 1-800-590-6605.

Other telephone companies expecting to apply for broadband funding from the Connect America Fund include: Alaska Communications Systems, AT&T, CenturyLink, Consolidated Communications, FairPoint Communications, Hawaiian Telcom, Virgin Islands Telephone, Verizon Communications and Windstream.

NOAA caught this ominous derecho cloud front in La Porte, Ind on June 29. The same storm would later cut power for millions all the way to the eastern seaboard.

A series of severe thunderstorms accompanied by near-hurricane-force winds caused millions of customers in several Mid-Atlantic states to lose power and telecommunications services late Friday, and some are expected to remain without service until at least this coming weekend.

The storm, known as a “derecho,” uprooted trees, which in turn knocked down power lines and caused wind-related damage to buildings from Ohio to West Virginia, Virginia to Maryland, and even into North Carolina.

But the storm also is raising questions about the massive failures in commercial telecommunications systems that left entire 911 emergency response systems offline for days, wireless networks non-operational, cell phone systems overwhelmed, and broadband service, deemed a lower priority by emergency officials, down and offline.

Some of the biggest problems remain in and around the nation’s capital and in the states of West Virginia and Virginia, where inadequate infrastructure proved especially susceptible to the storm’s damaging winds.

D.C., Maryland, and northern Virginia

In northern Virginia, calls to 911 were met by silence over the weekend, thanks to a catastrophic failure of Verizon’s landline network. With primary lines down, Verizon’s backup 911 systems also failed, leaving millions with no access to emergency responders.

Fairfax County officials finally put the word out the best way to summon emergency help was to drive (through streets littered with debris and downed power lines) to the nearest fire or police station for assistance.

“It’s just not OK for the entire 911 system in the region to go down for the period of time that we were out, especially after an enormous emergency where people needed to make those calls the most,” Sharon Bulova, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, told the Associated Press.

Verizon spokesman Harry Mitchell was left flat-footed, promising an investigation into Verizon’s latest 911 failure, and called the storm as damaging as a hurricane. He urged local officials to “move forward” beyond the immediate criticism and help make progress to get service restored.

Many emergency response networks also depend on telecommunications services, including fiber cables, to reach transmission towers for radio dispatch and mobile data terminals. In northern Virginia, the city of Alexandria has been managing to handle emergency dispatch services for several counties.

With power lines down, cable and phone lines often went as well. In those cases, electric utilities have first priority to restore service, and then cable and phone companies can begin repairs of their own.

Since cable operators rely on power companies to supply electricity to their amplifiers and other equipment, Comcast and Cox, which dominate the region, are blaming most of their outages on power disruptions, and promise service will be restored when the power returns.

Verizon’s DSL and FiOS broadband networks were both disrupted by the storm, primarily because of downed lines and power losses.Even wireless networks, which some might suspect would be immune to downed lines, were also seriously affected by the storm. Cell towers connect to the provider’s network through fiber optic and T1 lines, and although backup power generators can maintain a cell tower for days in some cases, backhaul line cuts can leave cell towers useless.

In metro D.C., call completion problems were a problem during the storm and sometime after as local residents turned to cell phones to communicate. Over the weekend, customers in and around Richmond, Va., found Verizon Wireless useless for text messages because of a service disruption. As backup generators ran dry of fuel, some cell towers that survived the initial storm have been shutting down until maintenance crews arrive and refuel.

The harshest criticism has so far escaped phone and cable companies. Instead, local officials and residents remain focused on Pepco, the power utility serving the Washington area. Pepco has learned from previous storms to become a master of lowered expectations, and is promising to do its best to restore power a week or more after the storm was a memory.

West Virginia and western Virginia

The state of West Virginia, and western rural Virginia state, have illustrated what happens when deteriorating infrastructure is asked to withstand winds of up to 100mph. Frontier’s operations in West Virginia were hit especially hard. Landline networks in that state had been allowed to deteriorate for years by former owner Verizon Communications. Frontier had its hands full trying to keep up with repairs, calling in additional staff and trying to maintain landline service in some areas with the help of generators.

That job was made much harder by a rash of generator thefts that impacted the phone company, and local authorities are still looking for those responsible. At least one-third of all central switching offices operated by Frontier in West Virginia remain on generator power as of yesterday. As of July 3, the company reported it has 12,000 repair requests still waiting for action.

It was a similar story in the western half of Virginia where independent phone companies and Verizon were faced with an enormous number of downed trees and power lines, many in rural areas. More than 108,000 Virginia residents are still without power as of this afternoon, and many will not see it restored until the weekend.

Because the derecho swept across a large area encompassing the entire state, it has been difficult for utility crews to respond from unaffected areas to assist in repairs because the damage was so widespread. Logistically, just coordinating repair operations has proved difficult because cell service has been spotty (or networks have been jammed with calls) in some of the worst-affected areas.

“Derechos are nothing to fool with, but still this was not the most serious storm Virginia has ever dealt with, and the impacts on our telecommunications networks seem to indicate they’ve been allowed to fall apart over the last several years,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Edward Klein, who lives near Roanoke. “I think an investigation is needed to make sure utilities are spending enough money to keep these networks in good shape so this kind of thing doesn’t happen everytime a storm sweeps through.”

Frontier has dealt with PaymentOne for years. This bill shows unauthorized cramming charges billed to a Frontier customer in the fall of 2010.

An Oregon man found himself facing $300 in early termination fees from Frontier Communications after the phone company first refused to intervene on his behalf and credit his account for unauthorized “phone cramming” charges.

Tim Curns was with Frontier since the 1990s, but not anymore.

“I pulled the plug,” Curns told KGW-TV after unsuccessfully trying to get Frontier to help remove an unauthorized charge from his land line phone bill.

Curns found a $14.95 charge on his bill from something called “PaymentOne.” When he called Frontier, they could not tell him what the charge was for and at first refused to credit him for the unauthorized charge. That is surprising because Frontier has been billing customers on behalf of PaymentOne for more than two years.

With Frontier uninterested in investigating the phone cramming incident, Curns was told he would be on his own trying to stop PaymentOne from billing his phone line every month.

Curns tried to tackle the problem himself, first calling PaymentOne and learning the company had enrolled his line for the service despite having the wrong mailing address on file. Frontier, upon learning that, eventually agreed to a one-time courtesy credit but could not promise additional charges would not be forthcoming the following month.

Engraged, Curns said if Frontier could not stop unauthorized charges, he could stop being their customer. At that point, the Frontier representative surprised Curns with news he was unknowingly committed to a two-year service contract, and he could cancel his service… if he paid around $300 in early termination fees.

That would leave PaymentOne with their money, Frontier enriched on an early termination fee the customer never knew he would owe, and little left in Curns’ wallet.

“My question to the phone company was, okay, if you make an adjustment on this bill for 14.95 what are you going to do to stop this from being a recurring charge,” Curns said, “and they said there’s nothing they can do, you have to call these people.”

So Curns called and said PaymentOne told him the name of that company is My Global 4-1-1, which is a front company for a firm called Doink Media LLC, which the Federal Trade Commission been chasing all over the country.

Kyle Kavas, Spokesperson for The Better Business Bureau said, “most of the time it’s just companies that are randomly picking out phone numbers and charging them. Those cramming charges are very dangerous because they come from companies that are usually scammers.”

KGW received this less-than-helpful statement from Frontier:

“Frontier takes customer concerns very seriously and always tries to make things right. Our normal policy on a ‘cramming’ issue, which is an unauthorized charge on a customer’s account, is to assist the customer in contacting the 3rd party company who added the charge. These 3rd party companies get a customer authorization from the customer although in some cases the customer doesn’t realize they’ve authorized the charge. An easy way to avoid these is to have a 3rd party block put on your account by calling Frontier Customer Service.”

Curns called Frontier and learned although the company does not currently charge a fee for third party charge-blocking, it might in the future.

What Frontier doesn’t admit is that it earns a piece of the action from every phone cramming charge found on a customer’s bill.

Curns ultimately decided to pull the plug on Frontier for good, paid a pro-rated early termination fee, and recommended other customers follow in his footsteps before unauthorized third party charges make their way to another phone bill.

For now, customers can call Frontier customer service and request all third party charges be blocked from your phone line. The service is free of charge, although there are no guarantees it will always remain that way. It would also be a good time to review your current account and learn if Frontier has put you on a contract plan with an early termination fee attached. If you did not authorize this, demand it be removed from your account at once. If you did authorize it, have Frontier note your account that you do not want it automatically renewed at the end of the term, a practice Frontier regularly engages in, and note your contract expiration date.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGW Portland Frontier Cramming 6-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KGW-TV visits with Tim Curns to discuss Frontier’s “look the other way” attitude about phone cramming charges.  (2 minutes)