Cable "Digital Phone" Subscriber Numbers (Source: SNL Kagan)

Rick Munarriz has a bone to pick with Comcast after discovering his cable television and broadband service was out of commission.  It was the fourth prolonged outage in four weeks.  But the Comcast customer of more than a dozen years was surprised when he called the cable company and they immediately tried to sell him Comcast’s “digital phone” service:

[…] An otherwise cordial representative tells me that he’s looking into my account. I could save some serious money if I switch my landline to Comcast’s XFINITY Voice offering.

“If I did that, how would I be reporting this outage?” I asked.

“Don’t you have a smartphone?” he responds, not realizing that he has just killed his own sales pitch.

Who needs a landline when you have a wireless phone? Who needs a Comcast triple play — especially when I’m already dealing with two outs?

Although not losing customers as fast as traditional landline phone companies, cable-delivered phone service is no longer growing as fast as it once did.  Most companies picking up “digital phone” customers are winning them these days from product bundling, with aggressively priced triple-play packages of phone, Internet, and cable service.  Many of these packages include the phone line for less than $10 a month more than a double-play package of Internet and cable-TV.

SNL Kagan collects statistics from cable operators who pitch phone service and documents the highest growth in cable-provided phone service came during 2004-2009.  Now that growth has slowed.  Customers who were willing cut their landline phone off in favor of a cell phone don’t need wired phone service from the cable company either.

It seems Comcast is willing to admit the same, even when pitching its own phone product.

AT&T to Rural America

While Verizon leverages its 4G LTE wireless network as a rural broadband solution, AT&T shows no signs of sharing Big Red’s enthusiasm (and investment).

In fact, while AT&T celebrates the end of its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood expansion and admits it has no answer to America’s rural broadband problem, the always excellent DSL Prime by Dave Burstein reports AT&T is mulling a sale of its rural DSL operations to a third party provider, essentially letting the new owner(s) deal with the rural broadband problem:

[AT&T] is “doing a rapid tech evaluation” of whether they can upgrade their DSL + wireless to “a competitive broadband product.” But Randall “doesn’t see a solution.” If that’s confirmed, “we’re looking for others who might want the properties.” […] It’s unclear if any of the “rural carriers” – Century, Frontier, Windstream – have the financial ability to make an attractive offer. If operators can’t raise the money, [AT&T] would need to make a financial transaction.

Verizon has sold off its entire “wireline” (landline infrastructure and business) operation in smaller, rural states — often properties it acquired years earlier from GTE — to focus on more lucrative urban markets.  AT&T could either spinoff its broadband operation to a third party to run or follow Verizon and sell off entire rural service areas not already upgraded for AT&T’s more modern U-verse.

Likely buyers include FairPoint Communications, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink, and Windstream — all independent traditional landline operators trying to focus on less-competitive rural markets pitching DSL broadband service.

AT&T has shown little interest investing in rural service areas located primarily in the southern and central United States.  As Karl Bode writes on Broadband Reports, AT&T is on record stating that they can’t find an “economically viable” way to upgrade these users, despite a looming increase in faster and less expensive last mile DSL technologies.

As AT&T has sought to redefine itself as a wireless company, the buildout of its wireless network could bring AT&T to also eventually pitch 4G wireless Internet service to its former DSL customers.  But like Verizon, those plans would likely include severely usage-capped service, while leaving its traditional DSL product starved for investment.

While incumbent phone and cable operators often try to directly block community broadband projects, sometimes politics and special insider interests also get in the way.  One of our loyal readers shared a piece with us published in Fierce Telecom that outlines the trouble spots:

Gov. Bobby Jindal Blows It for Louisiana; Wife’s Foundation Heavily Supported By AT&T

Jindal's wife's charity is a recipient of AT&T money.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce awarded $80.5 million to help drain Louisiana’s broadband swamp with a new statewide fiber network linking the most rural and poor areas of the state, including schools, libraries, hospitals, and universities.  Users could have obtained service from 10Mbps-1Gbps, but not if Jindal had his way.  He preferred AT&T (and the state’s cable operators) handle everything the same way they have traditionally handled telecommunications in the state — service in big cities and next to nothing everywhere else.  In addition to directly supporting the governor, AT&T contributes substantially to a charitable foundation founded by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal never openly blocked the project.  Instead, his administration “dithered and bickered” over the fiber network and ran the clock out.  Last October, the Commerce Department revoked the grant, leaving Louisiana’s Broadband Alliance with little more than a plan they’ll never be able to implement as long as Jindal occupies the governor’s office.  Stop the Cap! covered the mess back in November.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell:

“We want to know what the heck happened; we’re the only ones in the country that dropped the ball,” Campbell said. “I meet with people in every parish, and the number one priority by far is high-speed Internet, and how do you lose $80 million coming from the federal government to do that. How do you drop the ball, and if they did drop the ball was it because someone whispered in their ears, ‘it’s going interfere with big companies?’”

AT&T-Backed Astroturf Operation Scandalizes the Mayor’s Office and Ruins A High Tech Training Program

Marks

As Stop the Cap! wrote last fall, a scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida ultimately cost the city of Tallahassee a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world.

Mayor John Marks never bothered to inform the city he had a direct conflict of interest with the group he strongly advocated as a participant in the grant project. The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group that did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone. Mayor Marks was a paid adviser.

After the media got involved, the mayor’s office hoped the whole project would just go away. And it did, along with the $1.6 million.

Wisconsin Republicans <Heart> AT&T, Even When It Means Forfeiting $23 Million for Better Broadband

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a close friend of AT&T.  So close, when the phone company was threatened with the loss of revenue earned from the institutional broadband network it leases to the state, Walker and his Republican colleagues intervened, literally turning away $23 million in government stimulus funding.  Walker alone has accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! covered this story in detail in February 2011.

Governor Walker (R-AT&T)

The decision to return the money had a direct impact on 380 Wisconsin communities, 385 libraries, 82 schools, and countless public safety offices across the state.  Namely, being stuck with AT&T’s outdated and expensive network the state leases in successive five year contracts.  Since broadband stimulus funding requires the construction of networks designed to last 20 years, not five, Walker’s insistence on sticking with AT&T made the stimulus funding off-limits.  But what are friends for?

AT&T has historically had no trouble getting its phone calls returned by Republican state lawmakers, who have cheered most of AT&T’s proposed legislation through the state legislature.  Today, Wisconsin takes a “hands off” approach with the state’s cable and phone companies, passed a statewide franchising bill that stripped oversight away from local communities, and AT&T’s landline network faces little scrutiny in the state, especially in rural communities.

The state university is now attempting to bypass Walker with its own $37 million project, but it will never serve Wisconsin consumers.  The institutional network will target schools, hospitals and first responders.

As Fierce Telecom notes, other communities could face the loss of their stimulus funding if they do not get busy building the projects they promised.  The Rural Utilities Service, part of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, has put several projects on notice they could forfeit broadband stimulus funding if they fail to meet project deadlines.

Frontier Communications faced unhappy investors Thursday after announcing it was slashing its dividend nearly in half in an effort to raise money to sustain the company’s cash flow and reduce its debt.

The company’s earnings fell 8.1% as customers continued to leave for the competition, seeking better service and lower prices.

The poor earnings results and the dividend cuts delivered a one-two punch to Frontier stock, which slid to $4.20 a share, down 16 percent in the last three months.

Among Frontier’s biggest challenges remains the quality of its broadband service to customers.  Where competition exists, Frontier DSL continues to lose the speed battle, and recent junk fees padding customer bills, including a “High Speed Internet surcharge,” and increasing modem rental fees have alienated some customers.

Frontier’s chief operating officer and executive vice president Dan McCarthy told investors 83 percent of Frontier’s service area has access to the company’s broadband product.  However, fewer than 20% of Frontier’s customers have access to speeds as high as 20Mbps.  Only just over half can access the Internet at 6Mbps.  Many of Frontier’s customers can only access lower speed service (66% can choose 4Mbps, 76% — 3Mbps, and the rest 768kbps-3Mbps).

“We’ll be investing throughout the year to improve speed-reaching capability in all our markets,” McCarthy told investors on a conference call last week.

In the second half of 2010, Frontier is expected to increase the amount of Ethernet in its middle mile network, which McCarthy expects will allow the company to deliver faster speeds over VDSL2 and VDSL2 bonding as means of driving both speed increases in the residential and the commercial markets.

However, Frontier’s preoccupation with an internal system conversion, to integrate its acquired Verizon service areas with the rest of its network, has stalled much of the company’s marketing.  Promotions, in particular, have been anemic over the last several months and will likely remain that way until later this year.  Where competition exists, cable operators have successfully been picking off Frontier’s customers.

• Broadband and satellite TV additions are down, in part due to the lack of promotions and marketing;
• FiOS video losses continue as the company shuns its fiber video service in favor of satellite TV cross-marketing;
• Line loss rates remain very high: 8.3% of Frontier’s customers disconnected their landline service in the last quarter, 5.9% in areas that were not acquired from Verizon.
• Once customers leave, they rarely return.  Churn rate of Frontier customers coming and going is at just 1.6%.

As with similar Verizon landline sales in the past, initial revenue growth from acquired customers starts out high, boosting revenue numbers and often the value of a company’s stock.  But the heavy debt load incurred from acquisitions and ongoing line losses to the competition eventually take their toll, and Frontier’s revenue now reflects the reality of a company trying to sell more services to a declining number of customers.

Morningstar notes the company’s debt problems are significant:

Frontier has struggled to bring leverage down and hasn’t successfully placed new debt since closing the Verizon transaction in 2010. Management has talked about taking care of the $580 million maturity it faces in early 2013 for the better part of a year, with no result to date. Yields on the firm’s existing debt have increased over the past year, despite the sharp decline in Treasury rates.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services reduced its outlook on the company from stable to negative, noting the competition is increasingly hurting Frontier’s capability to raise revenue.

The company’s decision to slash its dividend in an effort to reduce debt has created consternation for some investors who stuck with the company when the share price was above $7 and the dividend was declared safe for two years.  Neither seems to the be case any longer.