Time Warner Cable will increase the broadband speed for its most popular Standard service to 15/1Mbps across the country over the next 60 days.

With increased competition from Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network and AT&T U-verse, Time Warner is boosting Internet speeds to stay competitive with aggressive promotions on offer from phone companies throughout its service area.

Rob Marcus, chief operating officer for Time Warner, today told investors U-verse was available in about a quarter of the company’s footprint, with Verizon FiOS offering service in 12% of the areas where the cable company provides service.

“Last quarter, U-verse featured fairly aggressive double play promotions, especially in Texas and the midwest, while FiOS continued to aggressively enter new buildings in New York City,” Marcus said.

Marcus

Time Warner Cable failed to meet investor expectations for broadband growth during the third quarter, and some are questioning the company’s wisdom narrowly-targeting promotions to specific segments of its customer base. Bloomerg Industries analyst Paul Sweeney suggested the company was struggling to market the correct bundles of services to its customers.

Marcus reported Time Warner has seen the largest growth in DOCSIS 3.0 enhanced broadband so far, with 73,000 new customers signing up for the company’s 30/5Mbps Extreme tier or 50/5Mbps Ultimate tier during the last quarter. Combined with Turbo customers, this represents over 22% of all Time Warner’s residential broadband customers.

But while the company celebrated its new revenue from cable modem rental fees, the new charge has alienated a number of customers, some now shopping around for a better deal from competitors.

“In essence, this is a rate increase on [broadband] service, but the key is our customers have a choice,” Marcus said. “If customers prefer to buy their own modem from a qualified list of options, we’re all for it. After all, if the modem is on the customer’s balance sheet, that is less capital expense for us and fewer truck rolls.”

Marcus’ statement conflicts with one made earlier by Joli Plucknette-Farmen, communications manager for Time Warner Cable in western New York. She told WGRZ-TV last month the new fee was not  a “rate hike dressed up as a fee”, as some critics have suggested.

The company made no announcements about increasing the speeds of its higher-speed tiers to maintain their value in light of the forthcoming speed increase for Standard service.

A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. In this final part, a look at Frontier’s broadband service and how the company is still struggling to integrate ex-Verizon customers now a part of the Frontier family. “It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart.” 

Frontier recently began marketing faster Internet speeds to many of their customers who can finally sign up for something roughly equivalent to today’s standard speeds from cable operators. But even in its more advanced forms of bonded DSL, ADSL2+, and VDSL, all remain distance-sensitive. Customers may simply never get the speeds they were promised if they live too far from the phone company’s central office.

Frontier wants to see the end of speed test results like this.

We recently started pushing our premium speed broadband to customers who qualify for our new speeds, which run up to 25Mbps for residential customers. Customers who truly qualify for this service will actually get to receive decent speeds comparable to what Time Warner Cable and Comcast offers.

We were originally planning to market this as competitive with FiOS fiber optic speed, but I’m honestly not surprised they dropped that angle once they thought of how stupid it would sound to veteran DSL customers that a standard telephone line could reach those speeds. Even the majority of our Frontier FiOS customers are sometimes lucky to receive the speeds that cable offers, but for different reasons.

If a representative says you do qualify for faster Internet service, it is still an absolute crap-shoot whether or not you will actually get through a two-hour streamed Netflix movie in two hours instead of four thanks to buffering issues.

We are still in the early stages of rolling out these new speeds and there are still many issues in our internal systems to work out. For example, if our internal Salesforce/DPI system has not been updated, you are not going to get the faster speed service even if you can see the central office from your house. When it does show a customer is qualified, both the customer and I rejoice because I get a commission and the customer can now successfully access Facebook in less than three hours. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and three of my orders for premium broadband Internet failed to complete despite the fact our system said they were qualified.

The cryptic reason? “Technology restraints do not allow this customer to reach any higher speeds.” That comes courtesy of our techs, who use it as a catch-all to cancel orders. Nobody can tell me why. I’ve asked dispatch, assignment, and tech managers and they have given me different explanations — none that seemed valid.

That leaves me calling back the customer, now excited they can finally use our broadband service to play online video games or Skype their son in college without being disconnected and let them know I was a big fat liar when I promised them something better, only to leave them stuck with what they had.

Next we need to update the information in those customers’ profiles so future reps do not lead them on. I have rechecked those accounts and to this day none of that information was updated. I just see my cancelled orders. So, there is even misinformation taking place within the company, preventing us from providing a risk free service.

Modem fees are a nuisance to a number of Frontier customers. The company is eliminating them for some customers.

Modem fees no longer apply to many Frontier broadband plans

Modem fees used to be an issue, however they are now increasingly included in the price of your broadband service. This can be especially good news in a competitive market where your broadband bill drops by nearly $7 a month, but those already using their own equipment will no longer see any savings from service credits applied to their monthly bills.

Are you really getting Frontier FiOS broadband speeds? Maybe not.

Speaking about misinformation, we have several Frontier FiOS customers that are actually only getting basic cable or DSL Internet speeds because their house was never actually wired with fiber. A street may have fiber optic cables all around, but if a customer is still using copper cable from the pole and inside their home, they are paying for services they are not getting. These customers are often noted in customer records we can access, but we are discouraged from sharing that information. This is not entirely our fault. This was a problem left over from the previous owner, Verizon Communications, which left us the mess to clean up. If you are only receiving half of the FiOS speed you are paying for, this may be why. If you complain, we will issue credit or create what we call a “SIFT Ticket” to send a tech to investigate a possible service upgrade.

Playing the Telephone Game with the telephone company

There have been countless times when I’ve been told five different things by five different people about how to handle a customer calling in for assistance. I understand that with millions of customers it is hard to predict what will happen on that next call, but simple things such as a consistent way to handle customer requests should be standard stuff. So, what can I do? Pick one of the five options and hope it is the right one for the customer.

Working for Frontier means dealing with short term goals that vary wildly day to day with no focus on any sort of objective. These loose operations and inconsistencies come straight from the top. This affects our long term goals as a company (whatever the hell those might be). These endlessly varying short term goals leave us with no foundation for long term goals because… again, there is no focus. That needed to be said twice.

Customers notice the rampant inconsistencies. A lot of customers candidly tell me, “you guys are spread too thin, and there is a severe lack of communication between all of your call centers.”

This is true, and much of it has to do with our purchase of former Verizon landline customers. It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart. I feel like we have bit off more than we can chew, despite the fact management dismissed these concerns as “speed bumps from the conversion.”

It is now 2012 and 2013 is coming closer every day and I am still dealing with the same issues that should no longer be happening as often as they should.

So, in closing, this has been my rant about the company I work for. I do enjoy my job (honestly, I do) and the people I work with are great. Even the customers who scream and yell at me, or the ones who commend me for my work, they’re all great in their own way. Nothing is as satisfying as actually calming someone down who has an issue with their bill, only to have them apologize and be grateful they got me on the phone. You have to truly be a people person to do this job, and not just do it for the money or it won’t work out for you. I’m not the most perfect representative, but I hope to strive to truly make every day I’m there in my cube less and less miserable and tedious.

Hopefully this crap can eventually be flushed and one day soon Frontier’s wheels will run smoothly.

Property values in the historic neighborhood of Hanover Heights (Kansas) are ticking up as tech businesses relocate to follow Google’s roll-out of gigabit fiber service, coming in a matter of weeks.

Only one problem: Google is not officially selling fiber service to businesses just yet. Answer? Buy residential property in the area and move workers who could deliver increased productivity with faster Internet speeds.

That was the answer for Local Ruckus LLC, which is opening its new headquarters in a 2,500-square foot home in the first neighborhood scheduled to receive Google Fiber service.

“It just makes life easier,” CEO Adam Arredondo told the Kansas City Star.

The company says it needs the faster speeds to facilitate transferring files back and forth more quickly.

RareWire, a local developer of apps for mobile devices has decided it can best leverage 1,000Mbps broadband speeds launching a new startup – App Creation Studio, which will assist developers with testing and marketing apps.

Tech start-ups are exactly what Google hoped to see from its experimental fiber network, which is still barely operational. City officials see fiber broadband infrastructure and Business Hosted Voice Solutions as the foundation for energizing the local digital economy.

KCMO mayor Sly James last month unveiled Launch KC — an effort to attract technology companies to Kansas City, particularly start-ups.

James announced five companies and Union Station were prepared to offer free or “very affordable” office space in the city’s Crossroads district, the West Bottoms, and downtown. Office space is even available at the Kansas City International Airport.

Other initiatives would stimulate businesses with attractive sale-and-leaseback offers and exemptions for sales and property taxes. Officials specifically targeted city neighborhoods they felt would be attractive to young entrepreneurs in their 20s and 30s looking for office space. Nearby renovated rental property in neighborhoods officials call “funky without being phony” and “organic” should prove attractive to those relocating to Kansas City, according to project representatives.

City officials are also working on developing free Wi-Fi service in the neighborhood and attracting a data center that would offer attractive cloud storage and other web hosting services.

Most of the incentives represent a fundamental shift away from traditional economic development initiatives, mostly targeted to traditional brick and mortar projects for large manufacturing, retail, or service companies that employ hundreds or thousands of workers. Instead, Kansas City officials are targeting small digital economy businesses that often employ fewer than 20 workers. Launch KC believes the sheer number of potential start-ups, and the modest cost of the program, could pay dividends.

With Google Fiber and the city’s cooperation, the Mayors’ Bistate Innovations Team Task Force believes it has a winning combination.

“We’re in a great position right now,” Burke said, “and we need to take advantage of it.”

Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.

Faster

Frontier Communications customers in selected communities will be able to receive faster Internet speeds by the end of the year because of network upgrades.

In late July, Frontier president and chief operating officer Daniel J. McCarthy announced the company was refocusing investment on improving the broadband experience for its customers, mostly serviced by ADSL.

Frontier’s rural customers primarily receive broadband service at real-world speeds of 768kbps-3Mbps. At least 74% of those customers will be able to sign up for speeds of 6Mbps by the end of the year. In more urban areas, 51% of customers will be able to sign up for 12Mbps, 42% for 20Mbps. Business customers in selected areas can qualify for speeds up to 40Mbps.

The upgrades will not come for free, however. Customers will pay more for higher speeds.

McCarthy

Frontier Max (3Mbps in rural areas, 6Mbps in urban areas) starts at $34.99 per month. Customers can move up to the next speed tier for an additional $10 per month. For example, a Frontier Max customer can move up to Ultra service (10-12Mbps) for $44.99, or Frontier Ultimate (20-25Mbps) for $55.99 per month. Once customers upgrade to a premium speed level, the modem rental fee (up to $6.99 a month) is reportedly eliminated.

Frontier’s upgrades are based on adopting more advanced forms of DSL technology. Most Frontier customers currently receive ADSL service — one of the oldest and slowest forms of DSL. Frontier is managing to boost speeds by bonding multiple DSL connections together, switching to ADSL 2+, or upgrading to VDSL technology. The company is also broadening its fiber middle mile network, which can reduce the length of copper wiring between the company’s central offices and customer homes, improving potential speeds.

Customers who do not change their level of service may still receive some benefits from area upgrades, as actual speeds come closer to matching those advertised by the company.

In some areas, customers will receive telemarketing calls announcing newly available speed options. But customers can also call 1-800-921-81o1 to find out what is currently available.

Stop the Cap! recommends proceeding carefully when considering a plan change. Be sure to ask about all terms and conditions, including installation/upgrade fees, modem rental fee (if any), contract terms, and whether any additional services are required (Frontier may attempt to sell an added-cost online backup service, home networking equipment, or technical support services you may not need).