Maybe this explains why Frontier’s customers in West Virginia and beyond are still waiting for the promised DSL service that actually delivers better than 1Mbps speed at peak usage times. Who knew it had to be this complicated?
Maybe this explains why Frontier’s customers in West Virginia and beyond are still waiting for the promised DSL service that actually delivers better than 1Mbps speed at peak usage times. Who knew it had to be this complicated?
New York’s telecommunications providers are up in arms over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to yank permanent deregulation for the “digital phone” industry (otherwise known as “Voice Over IP/VoIP”) from his budget, even though the phone service is already deregulated in New York.
Now Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable are claiming that without the deregulation they already enjoy, innovation, investment, and competition will be stifled.
“Verizon is very disappointed that New York’s lawmakers, who want the public to believe that New York is open for business, will not be acting on this important measure to modernize the state’s outdated telecommunications laws in this year’s budget,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo told the Albany Times-Union.
“It’s about new technologies, it’s about new services,” echoed Rory Whelan, regional vice president of government relations for Time Warner Cable. “We want New York to be at the forefront of where we roll out our new products and services.”
That notion has left consumer groups and telecommunications unions scratching their heads.
“They are saying that this is going to open the flood gates to more investment,” said Bob Master, political director for one chapter of the Communications Workers of America, which represents Verizon workers. “It’s ridiculous.”
Master says Verizon has been abandoning and ignoring their landline network for years, preferring to invest in Verizon Wireless and its limited FiOS fiber-to-the-home service which is available in only selected areas of the state.
New York’s Public Service Commission has largely not regulated competing phone service since Time Warner Cable first introduced the service as an experiment in Rochester. As part of then-Rochester Telephone Corporation’s (now Frontier Communications) “Open Market” Plan, competing telephone companies could offer landline service in the company’s service area, so long as Rochester Telephone received the same deregulation benefits. Only the cable company showed serious interest in providing home phone service, which it first delivered using traditional digital phone switches phone companies like Verizon and Rochester Telephone use. Time Warner later abandoned that service for a VoIP alternative it branded as “digital phone.”
Time Warner’s “digital phone,” as well as Verizon’s own VoIP service sold with FiOS, have co-existed regulation-free. Consumer advocates suspect the push to deregulate could eventually benefit Verizon more than cable operators, because it gives the phone company the right to question why any of its telephone services are regulated. Verizon’s FiOS fiber-based phone lines do not operate on the same network its still-regulated landlines do. Verizon, along with all traditional phone companies in New York, are subject to “universal service” guidelines which assure even the most rural New Yorkers have access to reliable telephone service.
But Verizon, like most traditional phone companies, sees substantial investment in “modernizing” legacy copper-based networks as an anachronism, especially as they continue to lose customers switching to cheaper cable providers or wireless phones. The company recently declared its fiber optic replacement network, FiOS, at the end of its expansion phase. That leaves the majority of New Yorkers with a copper-based telephone network companies only invest enough in to keep functioning.
Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., joined many New York Assembly Democrats in strong opposition to the bill, which Diaz thinks undercuts New York consumers:
If this proposal were to become law, all consumers would lose out. For starters, customers would not be able to bring service complaints to the Public Service Commission, as they currently can with traditional service. Additionally, there would be no way for the state to set standards for quality or for service in underserved regions — meaning that customers could get stuck with exorbitantly high rates or be unable to obtain service at all in some areas of the state.
Verizon FiOS, one of the main options for VoIP coverage, has now been installed in many regions of the state, including most of downstate. However, Verizon has chosen not offer the service in upstate cities like Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica. The result is both a virtual monopoly for the cable companies in those areas and another blow to lower-income working families who live in cities. That’s precisely why the state should be able to guarantee common sense regulations for VoIP service.
The problems with deregulating VoIP service are multifold. While traditional phone companies pay into a fund that supports “lifeline” phone access for elderly and disadvantaged New Yorkers, VoIP providers would not have to. We do not have to guess at how things would look if the state gives up its right to regulate internet phone service — we can just look at the states where traditional land line service has been deregulated. According to a recent survey of 20 states that have seen land line deregulation, 17 of those states have seen rate increases. We simply cannot afford that, particularly when our fragile national recovery is just beginning to take hold.
Verizon appears undeterred by the governor’s decision to pull the deregulation measure from consideration in his budget measure. Bills to deregulate continue to float through the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly, but New York’s legislature is notoriously indecisive and slow to act. Time Warner’s Whelan believes the best chances for the deregulatory measure will be in the GOP-controlled Senate where a similar bill passed last year. Verizon says it will continue to push for the bill in both chambers.
“We intend to continue pushing for this important measure, and for other measures that will benefit the state’s consumers and businesses to keep up with technological change and help the state thrive and succeed,” Bonomo said.
West Virginia continues to be broadband challenged, with or without the help of Frontier Communications’ DSL service, which continues to be criticized for being woefully “oversold.”
Now some of Frontier’s most frustrated customers have found Facebook, and hope to encourage the company to deliver better speeds through their Fix Frontier DSL Now page.
Customers are especially peeved in areas where they are sold “up to 12Mbps” service, but cannot break 1Mbps during peak usage times when inadequate infrastructure cannot support customer usage demands. Some are taking their complaints to the West Virginia Public Service Commission:
I am a long-time subscriber to Frontier Communications’ “High-speed Internet Max” DSL service. I live in the Frankford, West Virginia, telephone exchange (304-497-XXXX), which is an area that has always been served by Frontier. We never had Verizon service at my home.
When Frontier installed DSL service in our area, we immediately cancelled our satellite Internet service and signed up. Initially, we had business-class DSL which was very satisfactory. Later, we discontinued our business operation and downgraded to the residential “High-Speed Internet Max” DSL service. That remained quite satisfactory until about a year and a half ago, when service quality deteriorated to the point of being unusable.
During the evening hours, we generally log download speeds of anywhere from 150kbps (0.15MBPS) to 450kbps (0.45MBPS) , with around 300kbps (0.3MBPS) being the norm. This is barely adequate for accessing a static web page, and is totally inadequate for common tasks such as watching a video on YouTube or even streaming music. Speeds do improve, sometimes into the range of 1500kbps (1.5MBPS), in the middle of the night and the afternoons, when we are generally asleep or at work, but are consistently unusable during the evening hours when we are home.
Customers pay around $40 a month for this level of broadband service, and customers calling for assistance are being told to wait:
I have called Frontier’s tech support and opened numerous trouble tickets. Each time, a technician will come out to our house, test the line, pronounce it “perfect” from the house to the switching station, then explain that the problem is lack of bandwidth. Sometimes they say the bottleneck is in Bluefield. Sometimes they say it is between Marlinton and Ashburn, Virginia. In other words, Frontier does not have enough bandwidth available to meet customer needs.
The last time we put in a trouble ticket, the technician didn’t even come to our home. He just called and said he would put the ticket on the stack with all of the other ones, and perhaps the problem would be solved in a couple of years. A couple of years? Yet, I am constantly bombarded with ads asking me to buy Frontier’s high-speed DSL service at rates as low as half of what I pay.
As Stop the Cap! has reported previously, Frontier has acknowledged the problems in West Virginia and promised backbone upgrades to handle the influx of new customers, particularly those adopted from Verizon Communications in 2010 when the company purchased their landline network in the state. But a schedule of promised upgrades disappeared off Frontier’s website, and according to our readers, continues to be overdue.
The loudest complainers are offered $5 monthly service credits for their troubles, but customers don’t want the money, they want something that actually qualifies as “broadband service.”
Here is how you can tell where your problem might be:
Technical Line Fault Symptoms (these can be corrected by a local technician’s service call to your home)
Oversold Broadband (these problems require Frontier to regionally address problems that affect a much larger group of customers)
Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively picked up more than 1.5 million new customers in 2011, with most of the growth coming from dissatisfied DSL subscribers seeking better broadband speeds.
Leichtman Research Group, Inc. (LRG) found the eighteen largest cable and telephone providers in the US — representing about 93% of the market — acquired 3 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers in 2011. Annual net broadband additions in 2011 were 88% of the total in 2010.
The top broadband providers now account for 78.6 million subscribers — with cable companies having over 44.3 million broadband subscribers, and telephone companies having over 34.3 million subscribers.
Despite AT&T’s position as the second largest Internet Service Provider in the country, the company only picked up 117,000 new customers in 2011. In contrast, Time Warner Cable, with 6 million fewer customers, added almost a half-million new broadband subscriptions last year.
Frontier Communications, which made broadband a primary target for expansion, has not seen considerable growth either. The company only added just short of 38,000 new broadband customers last year, almost all getting DSL, often at speeds of 1-3Mbps.
Other key findings include:
“Despite a high level of broadband penetration in the US, the top broadband providers added 88% as many subscribers in 2011 as in 2010,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “At the end of 2011, the top broadband providers in the US cumulatively had over 78.6 million subscribers, an increase of nearly 25 million over the past five years.”
Americans are increasingly treating broadband as an essential “utility” service, as fundamental as electricity or clean water.
The majority of consumers who lack the service either consider it irrelevant in their lives (a factor that increases with the age of the surveyed respondent), cannot obtain service from their provider because of their location, or cannot afford the service.
Broadband Internet Provider | Subscribers at End of 4Q 2011 | Net Adds in 2011 |
Cable Companies | ||
Comcast | 18,147,000 | 1,159,000 |
Time Warner^ | 10,344,000 | 491,000 |
Cox* | 4,500,000 | 130,000 |
Charter | 3,654,600 | 252,900 |
Cablevision | 2,965,000 | 73,000 |
Suddenlink | 951,400 | 65,100 |
Mediacom | 851,000 | 13,000 |
Insight^ | 550,000 | 25,500 |
Cable ONE | 451,082 | 25,680 |
Other Major Private Cable Companies** | 1,925,000 | 55,000 |
Total Top Cable | 44,339,082 | 2,290,180 |
Telephone Companies | ||
AT&T | 16,427,000 | 117,000 |
Verizon | 8,670,000 | 278,000 |
CenturyLink | 5,554,000 | 238,000 |
Frontier^^ | 1,735,000 | 37,833 |
Windstream | 1,355,300 | 53,600 |
FairPoint | 314,135 | 24,390 |
Cincinnati Bell | 257,300 | 1,200 |
Total Top Telephone Companies | 34,312,735 | 750,023 |
Total Broadband | 78,651,817 | 3,040,203 |
Sources: The Companies and Leichtman Research Group, Inc.
* LRG estimate
** Includes LRG estimates for Bright House Networks, and RCN
^ Totals prior to Time Warner Cable’s acquisition of Insight completed on 2/29/2012
^^ LRG estimate does not include wireless subscribers
Company subscriber counts may not represent solely residential households
Totals reflect pro forma results from system sales and acquisitions
Top cable and telephone companies represent approximately 93% of all subscribers
Frontier Communications left dozens of businesses in the city of Rochester without phone service for well over a week because of a flooded cable the company struggled to repair.
Frontier says a flooded manhole along Interstate 490 was responsible for the outage, which primarily affected customers in the Park/Meigs Avenue District in southeastern Rochester.
But businesses are wondering why it took more than a week to bypass the damage and get phone service restored.
“We haven’t been able to get calls at all,” Stacy Ercan, owner of Stacy K Floral told WHAM News. “They have to forward our calls to the cell phone. But the cell phone can only answer one call at a time, so we’re definitely missing calls.”
“I’ve called 27 times in the last week [about the outage] and every time I get a different answer,” reported another business owner.
Some businesses say the Frontier service outage cost them more than inconvenience. One owner reported up to an 80% drop in her business while others complained they were unable to process credit card transactions.
[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester Park Avenue Shops Still Waiting for Phone Service 2-28-12.mp4[/flv]
WHAM in Rochester covers Frontier’s extended service outage that afflicted customers in southeast Rochester for over a week. (2 minutes)