Time Warner Cable is back again with another offer to existing Frontier Communications customers trapped in multi-year service agreements.  If you dump your Frontier landline overboard for Time Warner Cable’s Digital Phone service, the cable company will send you a gift card worth $200 good towards defraying your early termination fee, if any.  If you don’t have such a fee, you pocket the $200.  A year ago on this date the company ran a similar promotion heavily promoted in local cable television ad spots.

Time Warner will provide free installation of the phone line including unlimited nationwide long distance for $24.95 a month for 12 months.  With the $200 gift card, that’s above and beyond their usual promotion.  The company is also extending a bundled discount if a customer also takes Road Runner broadband service with their “digital phone” service.

For Frontier customers looking for an early exit, this offers one opportunity.

Existing cable subscribers can take advantage of the offer.  There are terms and conditions to consider, starting with where the offer is available.  The following Time Warner Cable service areas qualify:

• TWC Western New York
• TWC Central New York
• TWC Albany, NY
• TWC New England
• TWC Dothan, AL
• TWC Enterprise, AL
• TWC Yuma, AZ
• TWC El Centro, CA
• TWC Gunnison, CO
• TWC Telluride, CO
• TWC Coeur d’Alene, ID
• TWC Moscow, ID
• TWC Madison, IN
• TWC Newburgh, IN
• TWC Terre Haute, IN
• TWC Ashland, KY
• TWC Owensboro, KY
• TWC Richmond, KY
• TWC Kansas City, MO
• TWC Lincoln, NE
• TWC Ironton, OH
• TWC Richlands, VA
• TWC Pullman, WA
• TWC Clarksburg, WV

Next, the offer is only good for residential customers switching from Frontier’s landline service.  Limit one gift card per customer.  Your final Frontier phone bill showing a disconnect request must be furnished to Time Warner Cable within 30 days to qualify.  Your name and address must match on both bills.  Offer is not available to customers with past due balances with Time Warner Cable, defined as any money owed in the past 30-60 days or customers who have been disconnected for non-payment in the twelve (12) month period preceding this offer.  Service must be ordered by Dec. 31, 2010, and installation must occur within thirty (30) days of order date.

If you’ve contemplated a change in providers but didn’t want to be subjected to a steep early cancellation fee, this isn’t a bad offer.  Although I don’t use Time Warner Cable Digital Phone myself, others in my family do and they are satisfied with the service, although there have been at least two serious outages so far this year that ran several hours.  Since most people also carry a cell phone, any cable outage or power interruption that also takes out your phone line isn’t as serious as it might have been in earlier years.

And, ahem, unlike Time Warner Cable’s attitude towards broadband, they really do provide unlimited calling with their “digital phone” service.

Time Warner Cable is mailing this letter to Frontier Communications customers in the Rochester, N.Y. market. (Click to enlarge)

AirRunner Wireless serves a small portion of central Wisconsin from its headquarters in Marathon.

A wireless Internet provider serving central Wisconsin has banned online video streaming from its wireless Internet service, telling its customers WISPs are not designed for it.  To drive home the point, the service is jumping on the bandwagon of AT&T’s mobile network 2 GB usage limit with some stringent limits of its own.

Bill Flood, owner of AirRunner Networks LLC dispatched e-mail to every one of its central Wisconsin customers informing them some are violating the company’s use policies by streaming online video on its service, which it cannot accommodate.  Flood blamed companies like Netflix for forcing him to carry the costs of transporting movies and TV shows to his customers:

Hello! Over the past month we have been seeing an increasing issue on the network during peak times. From our investigation we have determined these problems stem from customers who are streaming Netflix or other ‘instant movie or movie on demand’ type services.

These types of products should not be used on the network for these reasons:

First, a wireless network uses access points, those by design do not handle continuous connections without affecting the other customers of that access point. Because the movie stays connected for a longer period of time, eventually other customers simply get less access and as a result see a severe network degradation.

Our Acceptable Use Policy over the years has grown as a result of new technology.

Not all new technology works well on every type of Internet platform. Although some customers have told me they have been using this type of service in the past, the increased usage spurred on by recent Netflix advertising, a CD for Wii devices and now by one of the satellite TV companies has brought this issue to the forefront.

These companies see the Internet as a means to save their resources and push the load onto the Internet.

Welcome to the Internet circa 2010.  The days of a voice declaring “You’ve got mail” from your AOL account are long gone.  Customers are demanding access to a much richer multimedia experience available online today.  That demand is beginning to regularly collide with the limitations some networks have to deliver the service.

To make sure his customers understand the implications of streaming video, Flood is also introducing one of the most punitive Internet Overcharging schemes we’ve yet to encounter, starting with a monthly usage limit of 5 GB accompanied by some vicious overlimit fees:

All non-business customers will be allotted 5 GB of total aggregate usage.

If the customer exceeds 5GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $30.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 10GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $60.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 15GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $90.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

Although these additional charges seem excessive, we are not alone on making such changes as the rest of the ISP’s [Internet service providers as well as cellular providers] are also implementing similar programs on their networks to deal with network congestion issues caused by ‘on demand’ type products. The good news is, the typical Internet customer never exceeds 5GB of aggregate usage. Only a small percentage of our customers are involved in this ‘on demand streaming activity’. Here is what can be done by the typical customer while not exceeding the 5GB threshold: Our basic residential Internet packages will offer 5GB of usage — that’s the equivalent of 500,000 basic text e-mails, 2,500 photos, 40,000 web pages, over 300 hours of Online game time, 1,250 downloaded songs, or a mixture of the above! 1,000 megabyte (MB) = 1 gigabyte (GB) We will send out a notice to everyone again when we are ready to implement these changes.

Flood’s e-mail doesn’t tell the whole story to his customers, however.

First, his imposed overlimit fees are ludicrously high.  A customer using 16 GB for the month would face an overlimit penalty of $90.  Considering AirRunner’s pricing, that’s a potentially enormous bill:

AirRunner offers six rate plans for residential and small business:

• $15.00 256K/256K, tiered access. New accounts only

The below programs require a contract.

• $19.00 1.0 Mbps/768K, tiered access. New accounts only
• $45.00 2Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $55.00 2Mbps/2Mbps, tiered access Bi-direction connection; useful for working from home.
• $65.00 3Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $75.00 5Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access

Second, “the rest of the ISPs” are not in fact imposing similar programs.  AT&T just abandoned theirs for DSL customers in two cities.  Attempts to ration broadband access typically meets resistance from consumers, if not an outright revolt.  As soon as customers get a bill with a $90 overlimit penalty on it, they will revolt as well.

It is true that wireless providers do face bandwidth challenges, but that’s not always disclosed to customers until after they sign up for service.  In 2010, would you sign a two year contract for a broadband service that banned online video?  Of course, if Flood offers the only service in town, for all practical purposes he can dictate the terms of the service provided.  But many customers have long memories and when another provider does arrive, they’ll take their business elsewhere.

Therein lies a potential problem for Flood.  A considerable part of central Wisconsin has been served by Verizon North, one of the divisions Verizon has sold to Frontier Communications.  Verizon dramatically cut investment in Wisconsin broadband expansion as soon as it became apparent they were leaving.  Frontier Communications is betting its long-term survival on bringing at least 1-3 Mbps DSL service to areas just like central Wisconsin.  It’s a safe assumption at least some parts of Flood’s service area will be challenged by Frontier DSL within the next year.

At that point, perhaps Flood will adopt a less hostile attitude towards his own customers.  Some of those who departed didn’t appreciate Flood’s tone or actions and shared some of his hostile communications on the subject.  Taking an adversarial stance even with former, paying customers never works well.  Among the thoughts Flood has shared:

• If you don’t like his caps, move to the city;
• One customer was told his service was canceled because he just doesn’t get it — besides, Flood wrote, he can do whatever he wants;
• Customers who are caught streaming are gone;
• If you complain too much, watch out.

Third, Flood follows the discredited playbook of trying to convince customers a 5 GB usage limit for the Internet in 2010 is reasonable with generous-sounding e-mail and web page browsing allowances.  Flood himself exposes the real issue — customers want to watch YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu and his network can’t handle it.  Of course, his marketing materials never bother to mention any of this.  Only after customers sign up, many under a two-year contract, does the truth come out (underlined emphasis ours):

In the case of ‘streaming video/movies or on demand type products or services’ recent weeks shows exactly what happens when these types of products are used. Everyone who uses ‘on demand or streaming products or services’ also knows there is an alternative which does not have an affect on any other user. We suggest the alternative as the best solution. We would appreciate everyone’s cooperation in resolving this current issue. If you are streaming movies you are making everyone mad!! Someday you may want to use the Internet and your neighbor will be streaming, then you won’t work. Wireless Internet was not designed to watch TV or movies.

If you are a ‘on demand user’ you may want to look at other options in lieu of streaming movies over the Internet. A basic resolution movie is typically 700Mb of data. So 1000Mb is equal to 1GB. So roughly 3-6 on demand or streamed movies will draw and additional charge to your account. All paying customers have the right to access their Internet connection, however any customer cannot deny any other customer access as the result of their usage. When this occurs policy is made to correct such actions. We make every effort to provide the best service we can, sometimes new Internet based programs and products do not work well on this type of network, that is not the fault of AirRunner Networks LLC and we cannot guarantee that any type of program or product will work properly or as advertised.

At least Flood was finally honest about the implications of watching online video from a provider with a low monthly usage allowance.  Just watching 3-6 online movies blows right through it, even fewer if it’s an HD title.

Unfortunately for Flood and other WISPs with similar network constraints, the evolution of the Internet and its online resources will increasingly place pressure on many networks that were built for a 1990s-era Internet.  As advanced video game streaming technology, online movies and television, online file backup, and other high bandwidth innovations not yet envisioned become increasingly popular, companies like AirRunner will be forced to upgrade their network or add new applications to the ban list, eventually facing obsolescence if a better provider arrives in town.

Goldman Sachs has reviewed the implications of Frontier Communications assuming control of millions of Verizon landline customers, and promptly downgraded their stock to a Neutral rating, telling investors the upcoming consolidation will hasten eroding revenues at Frontier.

“Consolidation of the underperforming acquired assets causes an immediate step-up in revenue erosion for FTR (-6.3% in 2010). In addition, the combined company’s initial EBITDA margins will be significantly below those of legacy FTR (pro forma of 48.0% in 2010, 470 bp below legacy FTR).”

Analysts added, “We expect longer term EBITDA margins of 50%-plus, driven by synergy realization (we forecast $450 mn/year by 2013), and moderating revenue declines, as FTR is able to bring a more localized focus to assets that were not a primary focus inside of a much larger Verizon entity. We forecast 2011/2012 FCF of $950 mn/$921 mn, as synergies and margin expansion only partially offset continued (but moderating) revenue erosion.”

In English, that means Frontier will benefit from its larger customer base in reducing expenses on a per-customer basis, and could become a big enough player to realize some benefits from rolling out services to a larger number of customers nationwide, but those benefits will be tempered by the ongoing loss of revenue as customers dump Frontier landlines for wireless and, where available, switch to a cable modem product to get better speeds and consistent service that Frontier DSL does not provide.  Losing that 5 GB monthly usage allowance won’t hurt either.

Frontier is betting a good deal of the company on expanding broadband service in its largely rural service areas, where many Americans are still stuck relying on dial-up or satellite fraudband, the service that promises a broadband experience but doesn’t come close to actually delivering one.

As long as Frontier doesn’t face competition in its markets, it can deliver 1-3 Mbps DSL service for up to $50 a month and bank those profits as a firewall against ongoing loss of landline revenue.  But if new players arrive, such as LTE wireless, WiMax, cable, or municipal fiber, Frontier’s business plan could go awry in a hurry.

Frontier also continues to pin its hopes on its enormous payout of dividends — sometimes exceeding 12 percent.  The stock is currently the best dividend payer in the S&P 500.  With dependable dividends and the ability to throw back free cash to investors, shareholders can’t ask for anything more.  In the first quarter alone, free cash flow amounted to $152 million and the company paid a dividend to shareholders representing 52 percent of that amount.  That’s $152 million Frontier won’t be spending to upgrade their service or have on hand to pay down debt.

For independent legacy landline providers like Frontier, reducing that dividend could spell disaster for the company’s stock price. Even investors understand this, which is why these kinds of cautionary notes are often attached to coverage about the company:

A cautionary note: telecoms companies with large fixed line exposure generally yield high dividends presently because investors do not believe their revenues and income levels are sustainable as people continue to substitute mobile phones for fixed lines.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has denied a request from the agency’s Consumer Advocate Division to reconsider the sale of Verizon landlines to Frontier Communications.

The CAD criticized the proposed sale, pointing to earlier failures of similar transactions in Hawaii and northern New England which harmed consumers and businesses in those areas.  The consumer advocate sought a formal independent audit of the deal and increased safeguards to protect service quality and the customers soon to be served by Frontier.

The PSC claimed the CAD didn’t supply any new evidence in its filing justifying a reconsideration of its earlier order approving the sale.  It turned the request down on Monday.

Both Verizon and Frontier had asked the commission to reject the CAD’s request.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told Wall Street the company is backing AT&T’s decision to cease unlimited access to its wireless data services.

“In most businesses when usage goes up, that’s a good thing because people pay more,” Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive officer, said at a Sanford C. Bernstein Wall Street investor conference Friday in New York. “It’s going to get the industry better aligned with consumer behavior.”

But Britt also said AT&T’s decision was “more sensible than when we did it,” referring to the company’s April 2009 aborted experiment to charge customers up to three times as much for broadband service with a consumption billing scheme that got a hostile response from consumers.

Britt was speaking about the network capacity constraints that wireless data networks have that do not compare with the much wider pipeline available to wired provides like Time Warner Cable.  Britt cited AT&T’s still-exclusive iPhone as being the single most significant factor in AT&T’s decision.

Britt told Business Week that “at the time” consumption “pricing was needed to maintain the expense and expansion of the network.”

But consumer advocates suggested the company targeted its overcharging experiment in cities where customers didn’t have strong competitive alternatives.  That was particularly the case in Rochester, N.Y. and Greensboro, N.C., where alternative broadband meant significantly slower telephone company DSL service.  In the case of Rochester, that service included a monthly 5GB usage allowance in Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy.

Without equivalent competing alternatives, broadband consumers would be trapped in a broadband backwater with significantly worse service than neighboring cities.

Despite Britt’s acknowledgment that his company backed off because of strong consumer opposition, he’s still willing to talk about bringing the overcharging scheme back, telling Business Week, “Exactly how it works and what the PR around it will be is something we can talk about.”

[Note: We will have some audio up soon. — Editor]