As Stop the Cap! first reported last summer, the state of West Virginia is embroiled in a growing scandal over how the state spent more than $126 million in federal institutional broadband expansion funds it was awarded in 2010.

Sources inside two small community libraries and a regional government office collectively contacted Stop the Cap! this week warning that some of the targets for broadband funding including schools, government offices, and libraries have been handed world-class broadband networks they cannot operate without ongoing support not included in the grant.  With little chance of funding, many institutions will be unable to pay the monthly service rates and maintenance fees charged to keep the networks running.

“We are getting a Hummer network on a Kia operating budget,” one community library official tells Stop the Cap! “The network sounds great, but in our case we have to find the money to pay the bill to run it every month, and that money is hard to find in a library with five outdated public terminals.”

Another source tells us installers left more than one library with equipment nobody knew how to operate.

The Cisco 3900 router series

“They installed it over the course of a few days and just left, and nobody here knows how it works,” the librarian tells us. “We’ve quietly gone back to our old Wi-Fi system until we can figure these things out. We don’t even have their phone number.”

At a library in Hurricane, librarian Rebecca Elliot said workers who showed up to install the router didn’t leave behind instructions or a user manual either.

“I don’t know much about those kinds of things,” Elliot told the AP. “I just work here.”

While the original purpose of the grant was to “improve broadband” in the Mountain State, the funding came with significant restrictions that targeted the money exclusively for institutional broadband networks that do not serve individual residences or businesses. While West Virginians languished with some the country’s worst broadband service, state officials were green-lighting spending on grossly oversized equipment that institutional users simply don’t need and sometimes cannot afford to operate.

Martin

One critic, Jim Martin, president of business broadband provider Citynet said last summer the state gave preferential treatment to Frontier Communications to construct networks that ultimately favored them as the logical choice of service provider, but left small institutions with service bills they can never hope to pay.

“Where is the accountability,” Martin asked this week.

His fears appear to be justified. This week, a consulting firm has been hired by the state to audit how more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent after reports in the Charleston press brought news the state paid millions to deploy equipment to facilities that did not need any service improvements.

The Charleston Gazette reports it found 366 unused routers valued at more than $22,000 each in storage.  They have been there for two years.  In fact, at least $24 million was spent on routers designed to be used by large corporations or universities that were installed in libraries and public safety centers with just a handful of personal computers. Experts say a basic retail router priced at $50 could have provided more than acceptable service to these locations.

West Virginia’s state Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette on Monday admitted, more than two years after the state won the grant, now might be a good time to hire a consultant that does not work for a company trying to sell the state broadband equipment or services.

Despite the suggestion the state designed its network improvements based on the recommendation of equipment vendors, Burdette sought to move on and avoid “finger-pointing” and “dwelling on past decisions.”

Burdette

“I don’t want to spend a lot of time on things we cannot change,” Burdette told the Gazette. “If we made mistakes, then we need to look at how do we take lemons and make lemonade.”

“That’s the most expensive glass of lemonade in the history of West Virginia,” replies our source inside a regional government office. “Imagine what that money could have done extending broadband service to the homes and businesses that do not have it today.”

Our source says the state government is engaged in classic “butt-covering” with the announced state audit.

“Of course the report will blame people lower down in government while leaving the oversight failure for another day,” he tells us. “What’s a hundred million in taxpayer money, right?”

Burdette and other state officials might have listened to the state’s own Office of Technology, whose administrator warned that the routers — the Cisco series 3945 — “may be grossly oversized.”  Other state and library officials also questioned the purchases.  Burdette said the state should have hired a consultant before purchasing the equipment and launching the expansion project, which will not deliver a single broadband connection to any resident or business in the state.

Martin said in 2011 the entire grant process was wrong-headed from the beginning.  Martin says the state should have spent the money on a stronger middle-mile network to boost capacity for everyone in the state.

Now West Virginia is in a hurry to spend the remainder of the grant award — an undetermined amount — before the grant spending expiration date is reached. Unspent funds must be returned to the federal government.

State officials promise they will find a home for every unused router by the time the stimulus grant expires. That could leave a rural county sheriff’s office with a router designed to serve a minimum of 500 concurrent users in a facility with fewer than a dozen aging personal computers.

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications has confirmed a Stop the Cap! exclusive report that the company has shown an interest in a licensing arrangement with AT&T to deliver U-verse to Frontier customers in larger markets.

Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications today told investors on a morning conference call that the company likes the U-verse product and is considering deploying it.

“We’ve been evaluating a lot of other alternatives of which U-verse is one of the alternatives,” Wilderotter said. “We think it’s a product that can work, not just on fiber, but it also works on copper as well. So it’s a lot more forgiving in the market.”

Wilderotter claimed the company has no immediate plans to introduce the technology, but Stop the Cap! has obtained documentation that shows the company now refers specifically to “U-verse” in internal communications, is hiring new leadership to oversee the company’s IPTV plans, and has plans to dramatically expand VDSL technology, a prerequisite for deploying AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood platform.

Wilderotter

Frontier Communications has had a difficult time supporting its Verizon-inherited FiOS fiber-to-the-home networks in the Pacific Northwest and Indiana.  The company has found itself unable to compete effectively in the video business because it negotiates programming contracts independently, which locks Frontier out of the volume discounts that other independent providers routinely receive from participating in programming purchasing co-ops.  Frontier lost 4,800 FiOS video customers in the last quarter alone.

Wilderotter said as a result of programming costs, Frontier has no plans to pursue any additional fiber expansion to deliver video programming.

However, a licensing arrangement with AT&T U-verse could open the door to Frontier receiving the same volume discount prices for programming that AT&T already receives as part of its own operations. Because Frontier would have to significantly upgrade its existing, primarily middle-mile fiber network to reduce the amount of copper wiring in its network, the company faces significant capital investment costs wherever it chooses to deploy the more advanced broadband network.

Wilderotter hinted Frontier’s plans for the enhanced technology would be limited to a handful of cities.

“It doesn’t make sense in all of our markets,” she said. “It’s only a handful of markets other than where we have FiOS today. So there’s more to come on that over time. Video is very important. We think over the top video is probably more important than anything else.”

The most likely target for any IPTV expansion would be Frontier’s western New York operation in and around Rochester, where the company currently competes against Time Warner Cable with a mediocre DSL product that can no longer compete with the cable operator’s superior speeds and pricing promotions.  Frontier is steadily losing market share in most of its more-populated service areas.

Other likely targets for expanded broadband include larger cities in Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and California.

Frontier's Broadband Customers (as of 12/31/11)

Chief Operating Officer Daniel McCarthy added Frontier also has plans to improve broadband speeds in most of its service areas.

“We’ve been working pretty steadily to improve the core network around the country,” McCarthy said. “You’ll see us aggressively move forward with sort of VDSL and bonded ADSL2 copper.”

Currently, Frontier only informally offers bonded service to residential customers in very limited areas, notably in parts of the Genesee Valley in western New York.  The company has been marketing an extra line of traditional ADSL service to customers elsewhere who want more broadband capacity, but that requires a second broadband modem and delivers no speed improvements.

Frontier’s time frame to deploy enhanced speeds in within 12-24 months, according the company officials.

In other developments, Frontier Communications customers formerly served by Verizon will likely find themselves choosing new service plans as Frontier prepares to migrate customers away from legacy Verizon service packages.

Wilderotter telegraphed that affected Frontier customers will see some rate increases when the new plans become effective.

“We do think that there is a pretty substantial revenue upside,” Wilderotter said. “We think the net-net is we’ll get customers on the right portfolio of products that will also be revenue enhancing for the company and we’re going to surround the products with the right kind of service experience, both online and off-line. We’re redesigning all of our online product sets for a better customer experience so they can manage their own broadband usage and actually upgrading or changing what they do with broadband themselves, if in fact, they want to do that.”

Verizon Wireless’ answer for rural America’s broadband troubles goes live across the country today, offering the broadband deprived the opportunity of getting wireless service at almost twice the price of conventional DSL, with a 10GB monthly usage allowance.

HomeFusion Broadband uses Verizon’s LTE network to deliver service to homes and businesses within range of Verizon’s 4G network.  For rural America, the speeds Verizon is capable of delivering offer a significant improvement over rural DSL.  Verizon promises 5-12Mbps down and 2-5Mbps up, depending on how many users are sharing the cell tower and how strong a signal one receives.

“HomeFusion Broadband is another example of Verizon Wireless’ commitment to providing our customers with the most innovative products and services,” said Tami Erwin, vice president and chief marketing officer, Verizon Wireless. “With HomeFusion Broadband, customers across the United States, in towns large and small, will have the chance to link devices to the Internet and take advantage of the speed, coverage and connectivity offered by our 4G LTE network.”

Whether they can afford it may be another matter.

Verizon Wireless charges a one-time equipment fee of $199.99, which includes professional installation of the required cylindrical outdoor antenna and router that allows customers to share the wireless connection with other devices inside the home.

Monthly service fees start at $60 a month and include 10GB of monthly usage. If you need more data, you will pay a significant amount to get it — up to $120 a month for 30GB of usage.  As a tease, customers get 50 percent more data allowance for the first two full billing cycles of service.  If you become accustomed to using that extra allowance, it could be very costly once the first two months are up.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB.

Verizon claims two-thirds of the country is now covered by their 4G LTE network, including the regions Verizon sold off to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications.  Those independent phone companies will soon have Verizon as a broadband competitor in states like West Virginia, Vermont, Ohio, and Maine. If customers value speed over everything else, Verizon could be a formidable competitor over traditional rural DSL, which often operates at speeds of 1-3Mbps, as long as customers steer clear of allowance-eating online video.

Verizon has positioned HomeFusion as a rural broadband solution, and earlier pricing and policy changes make it clear Verizon is downplaying its traditional DSL service.  In April, Verizon announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL service to customers without voice phone lines, or to those who live in areas also wired for the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

Maggie Wilderotter's "High Speed" Fantasies

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter wrote this week the company’s network improvements and expanded broadband has moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five.

In an Op-Ed editorial published in the Charleston Gazette Tuesday, Wilderotter likened Frontier’s broadband improvement to the 1960s moon program.  Customers in West Virginia living with Frontier broadband can relate — to the 1960s anyway.

Where did Wilderotter get her information?  Perhaps from Frontier’s own Dan Waldo, who made the same claim last summer in an interview with MetroNews Talkline.  At the time he said it, West Virginia was ranked 47th in the country for broadband access.  It now ranks even lower today — 53rd by the federal government’s national broadband map (the federal government also ranks U.S. territories and possessions.)  In fact, West Virginia is in dead last place among U.S. states.  Only Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are worse.

This chart ranks the percentage of customers within a state receiving a minimum of 3Mbps download speeds and upload rates of at least 768kbps. (Source: National Broadband Speed Map/National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission )

The Center for Public Integrity is slightly more generous.  It ranked West Virginia 46th in broadband subscriptions.

Even Ookla, which analyzes millions of speed tests, tanked West Virginia, noting the average download speed is among the lowest of all 50 states at just 8Mbps, and that number seems high because it includes the state’s largest cable operators — the providers that actually deliver substantial broadband speeds.

Frontier’s contribution to West Virginia’s broadband improvement effort is measurable and noteworthy, at least for rural residents who can’t get broadband service any other way.  But many customers living with Frontier sure wish they could.

The company is expanding slow speed DSL service (1-3Mbps) to an increasing number of rural homes, but it does not come cheap.  On a megabit by megabit basis, all of the state’s cable providers deliver better value — more speed for the buck, when examining the actual “out the door price” that includes taxes, modem rental fees, and surcharges.  Frontier charges all of the above.

While Frontier delivers an average speed of 2.41Mbps in West Virginia, Comcast delivers more than 13Mbps.  Among wired providers, Frontier remains in last place.  Ookla shows some minor improvements in broadband speed, perhaps attributable to the network upgrades Wilderotter wrote about, but every other wired provider in the state performs better than Frontier’s DSL.  Who did worse?  Sprint’s 3G/4G wireless network and Wildblue, a satellite Internet Service Provider.

Average download speed performance of ISPs within West Virginia. (Source: Ookla; Graph Period: October 2009 - April 2012)

Wilderotter:

Broadband connectivity throughout all of America can be the thread that unites us all and helps pull our nation up again. Over the past two years in West Virginia, Frontier has worked with the state to bring broadband to thousands of residents and businesses. We have invested in a fiber backbone infrastructure that connects cities, libraries, schools, hospitals and government service facilities. The network improvements and the access to broadband have moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five. Economic development has picked up, and entrepreneurship is alive and well. Frontier is focused on taking this model to the other rural areas we serve throughout the United States.

Frontier’s efforts to expand broadband in a state its predecessor Verizon underserved for years is admirable and the company has indeed expanded service to areas that never had access before.  But as broadband rankings illustrate, Frontier’s incremental efforts are being overshadowed by more dramatic service and technology improvements in other states — the primary reason West Virginia is actually ranking worse than ever.  Frontier is not fooling anyone promoting its institutional fiber broadband networks ordinary West Virginians cannot access from their homes or businesses.  Our own readers tell us the company has repeatedly missed deployment schedules, broken promises, reduced speeds, and suffers from a woefully oversold network that slows to an intolerable crawl during peak usage periods.

Getting West Virginia among the top-five broadband states will require:

• Major investments in fiber optics into neighborhoods and homes.  All of the highest ranked states receive fiber to the home and/or fiber to the neighborhood service in larger cities, and faster DSL than what Frontier routinely sells West Virginians;
• An upgrade of the state’s broadband backbone to better manage increasing Internet usage during peak usage periods;
• Additional penetration of competing technologies into more rural areas.  Cable and fiber broadband deliver the fastest speeds, but most rural areas are bypassed.  Frontier will need to deploy faster and better service to dramatically improve the state’s broadband ranking.