Most cable operators are doing a better job of providing telephone service than traditional telephone companies, according to a new J.D. Power and Associates survey.

Among the worst providers across all regions were Frontier Communications, which scored dead last in the East and North Central regions, and cable operator Charter Communications, which won the lowest score overall for service in the western United States.  Cox delivered the most consistently reliable service across three of the four regions it serves, although it was beaten by Bright House Networks in the south.

The results:

The study measured customer satisfaction with both local and long distance telephone service in four regions throughout the United States. Five factors were examined to determine overall satisfaction: performance and reliability; cost of service; billing; offerings and promotions; and customer service.

Satisfaction with performance and reliability-the most influential factor contributing to overall satisfaction-has declined by 6 percent to an average of 7.4 (on a 10-point scale) in 2011 from 7.9 in 2011. Within this factor, satisfaction with the service provider’s ability to keep outages to a minimum has experienced the greatest decline.

“The brutal winter weather that plagued much of the country clearly took a toll on service levels,” said Frank Perazzini, director of telecommunications at J.D. Power and Associates. “In fact, the proportion of customers who contacted customer service to report an outage jumped to 21 percent in 2011 from 12 percent in 2010.”

According to Perazzini, a key driver for mitigating losses in satisfaction due to outages is effectively managing customer expectations regarding service restoration. On average, customers who experience an outage are advised that service will be restored within 30 hours, while actual service restoration time averages 25 hours. Overall satisfaction among customers whose service was restored approximately three hours earlier than the time quoted by the service provider averages 705 on a 1,000-point scale. In comparison, among customers whose service was restored three hours after the estimate given by the provider, satisfaction averages 591.

The study also finds that among customers who use an alternative phone service (for example, cellular or Internet service, rather than wireline), the proportion who replace wireline telephone calls with cell phone calls, texts and email remains relatively unchanged in 2011, compared with 2010. However, use of Internet calling services such as Skype or Vonage has increased to 21 percent in 2011 from 16 percent in 2010. Customers who use Internet calling services are significantly less satisfied with their telephone provider (622 on average, which is 14 index points below the industry average of 636) and are more likely to switch telephone providers (23% vs. the industry average of 16%).

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

While most rural telephone companies are selling customers 1-3Mbps copper-delivered DSL service, Alcatel Lucent has announced the commercial availability of VDSL 2 Vectoring, a new way of delivering up to 100Mbps over the copper wire telephone network most rural North Americans still depend on for telecommunications service.

VDSL2 combines a fiber-copper hybrid network similar to Bell’s Fibe or AT&T’s U-verse, with interference-cancelling technology called “vectoring” to deliver speeds much closer to the 100Mbps theoretical limit of current DSL technology.

“Alcatel-Lucent’s plan to make VDSL2 vectoring commercially available is very timely,” said Rob Gallagher, Principal Analyst, Head of Broadband & TV Research, Informa.  “VDSL2 Vectoring promises to bring speeds of 100Mbps and beyond to advanced copper/fiber hybrid networks and make super fast broadband speeds available to many more people, much faster than many in the industry had thought possible.”

A new way to boost copper speeds even faster.

Different flavors of DSL are currently in use around North America and beyond.  The most basic form, ADSL, also happens to be the most commonplace among phone companies offering basic broadband service.  For customers up to 12,000 feet away from a phone company central office, DSL delivers speeds usually at 1Mbps or faster.  Customers enjoying the fastest speeds must live much closer to the phone company facilities.  The further away you live, the slower your broadband speed.  In rural areas, consumers can live further away than the maximum distance of the central office, which means no DSL service for those subscribers.

A combination of signal loss and interference, called “crosstalk,” from adjacent copper wire pairs are both the enemies of DSL broadband, because they can drastically reduce speeds.

Telephone companies can address this problem by building new satellite central offices located halfway between customers and their primary facilities.  These offices, usually connected by fiber, can successfully reduce the amount of copper wire between the customer and the company, boosting speeds.  Many phone companies also deploy DSL extensions called D-SLAMs, which can be attached to a phone pole or enclosed in a metal box by the roadside.  A fiber cable connects the D-SLAM back to the phone company, while existing copper phone wires go back to individual subscribers.

More modern forms of DSL: ADSL2, ADSL2+, and VDSL, share some of those concepts.  The key is cutting as much copper wire out of the network as possible, replacing it with fiber optic cable which does not suffer signal loss or interference in the same way.

Many European and Pacific broadband networks rely on ADSL2/2+, which can usually deliver reliable speeds in the 20Mbps range.  VDSL networks offer even more bandwidth, and are the basis of U-verse and Fibe, which split up broadband, phone service, and television on the same cable.  When customers demand even faster speeds, phone companies can “bond” several individual DSL connections together to deliver faster speeds.  Some traditional ADSL providers do that today for their customers, especially in areas where low speeds prevail.

An argument the phone company will love.

Alcatel Lucent says VDSL2 with Vectoring is the next best thing to fiber to the home, because it is cheaper to deploy with fewer headaches from local authorities when streets and yards are dug up for fiber cable replacements.  It also meets the growing speed needs of average consumers.  Alcatel Lucent predicts the minimum speed North Americans will need to support the next generation of online video is 50Mbps, more than 10 times the speed phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, Frontier, and CenturyLink provide over their traditional DSL networks, especially in rural and suburban areas.

Vectoring can deliver results for phone companies with aging copper wire infrastructure, more prone to crosstalk and other signal anomalies.  Alcatel Lucent compares vectoring with noise-cancellation headphones.  By sampling the current noise conditions on copper cable networks, vectoring can suppress the impact of the interference, boosting speeds and delivering more reliable results.

With technologies like VDSL2 with Vectoring promising speeds far faster than what rural North Americans currently enjoy, the Federal Communications Commission may want to re-evaluate its national minimum speed standard for broadband — 3-4Mbps — found in its National Broadband Plan.  Alcatel Lucent promises they can do much better.

[flv width=”640″ height=”324″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Alcatel Lucent VDSL2.flv[/flv]

Alcatel Lucent produced this video to promote its new VDSL2 with Vectoring technology.  The video targets cost-conscious phone companies who are being pressured to deliver faster service, but don’t want to spend the money on a fiber to the home network.  (6 minutes)

Phillip "Frontier DSL is Too Slow and Expensive" Dampier

Frontier Communications occasionally sends me mailers promoting their latest offer for DSL and/or satellite service.  The price on the front of the letter looks good — usually around $20 a month — despite the fact the best Frontier can deliver my area less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line is 3.1Mbps.  But Frontier’s fine print is infamous for bill padding extra fees, charges, and service commitments that makes the out-the-door price literally higher than Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service, which actually delivers substantially faster speed at a lower price.

I’m not alone.

Customers in several Frontier service areas are openly wondering why they should do business with the phone company when they are charging more for less service.

In Ohio, Frontier Communications competes in some areas with Buckeye Cablevision.  Frontier sells DSL Internet in northwest Ohio for $29.99 a month.  For that, customers like Inquiry receive 6.2Mbps even though they bought 7.1Mbps service.

“Their [Internet prices] are significantly higher when comparing the other providers in northwest Ohio,” Inquiry writes. “Buckeye Cablevison has 10Mbps service for $24.95/month. And they actually give the customer 10.8Mbps.”

In areas where Frontier often finds itself the only game in town, that price is downright cheap.

Frontier's "High Speed" Fantasies

Nialis in Aliso Viejo, Calif. doesn’t know what Inquiry is complaining about.  He pays $30 a month for 1.5Mbps DSL service from Frontier.

Eric McDaniel from McDavid, Fla. found small relief when he complained about the 2.2Mbps DSL service he was paying $39.99 a month to receive.

“I now pay $29.99, and that is only because I threatened to cancel my service,” McDaniel says. “Now they give me a $10 recurring credit.”

“What are you going to do when they’re the only show in town?”

Even Charter Communications, one of America’s lowest rated cable companies, has prices and service that beats Frontier hands-down.

In some Charter areas like Wausau, Wisc., Frontier DSL comes with a two year service commitment, a $14.99 monthly Wireless Router Fee, and comparatively slow service:

Frontier Communications Pricing - Wisconsin

Customers can pay $29.99 a month (before fees) for “up to 3Mbps” DSL service from Frontier or spend $29.99 and get 12Mbps from Charter:

Charter Communications Pricing - Wisconsin

So how does Frontier Communications keep offering service at uncompetitive prices?  They have much greater success in the rural markets they favor, where cable competition rarely exists.  Plus, many consumers may not understand the impact of the speed differences they receive from different providers, tending to blame “the Internet” for slowdowns more than the provider delivering the service.  Some customers may also be attracted to valuable customer promotions that include free netbooks or television sets, and forget about the fine print service commitments that come with the deal.

As dwink9909 from Clintonville, Wisc. shared on the Frontier Broadband Reports forum: “Frontier Communications Inc. is free to charge the maximum the market will bear primarily because they are the only provider in most of the areas they serve. That’s certainly true here in Wisconsin. Six miles south of me you can get dial-up service from two dozen ISPs and broadband via wireless, cable or DSL, but here there is only a single provider for telephone and broadband. We are among the “under-served” millions who are just glad to have high speed Internet at any cost.”

Frontier is only too happy to oblige.

Frontier Communications customers in North Escambia have spent a very frustrating summer trying to use Frontier’s Internet service.  The phone company has left their Internet customers in Walnut Hill, Bratt, Molino and Atmore (Ala.) offline from at least six major outages since June, often lasting as long as 12 hours at a time.

“This is happening way too often, with no reimbursement for not having the service,” says Frontier customer Susan. “It is crazy to pay as much as we do for dinosaur equipment. I was being charged for High Speed Max for over three years and was actually only getting 756kbps. When we found this out, they only gave me credit for half of what they were overcharging me.”

Frontier Communications blamed AT&T for the latest outage, which lasted nearly eight hours.

Escambia County, Fla.

Karen Miller, spokesperson for Frontier, said the outage occurred when an AT&T fiber line was cut near Bay Minette, interrupting the connection between Atmore and Atlanta.

Miller admitted Frontier has just a single strand of fiber optic cable for their Panhandle customers.  When something happens to that fiber, there is no backup and service goes offline… for everyone.

Without redundancy, Internet customers are at the mercy of AT&T, and any contracting work done between Atlanta and Atmore.  That’s a major problem for some Frontier customers.

“If Atmore and Northwest Florida is managed with only a single cable and the [connection] point of this service is at Bay Minette, Atmore is in bigger trouble than they know,” writes JimD.

Bay Minette is vulnerable to serious Gulf hurricanes.

Customers were also not happy to learn Frontier was largely blaming AT&T, particularly as some customers pay Frontier upwards of $50 a month for less than 1Mbps service that has failed them at least a half-dozen times in the past 90 days.

“Frontier routinely gives high cost deficient service and holds a monopoly on the local market,” writes one local customer. “It is nearly impossible for businesses to find another option. It’s a case of mind over matter: they don’t mind so we don’t matter.”

Miller says Frontier is currently conducting an engineering study to get a backup fiber route from Atmore to Atlanta, but for some customers it is too late.

“We switched to Bright House Networks for both Internet and landline service,” says another customer. “It’s better quality, less expensive and it works. No more Frontier-anything for us.”