Lost more customers than it gained for the first time.

Phone companies depending on DSL to keep them in the broadband business are in growing trouble, unless they lack a nearby cable competitor. Subscriber numbers from nine different major phone and cable companies over the summer of 2012 show cable broadband continues to grow as customers cancel DSL service from their local phone company. But for rural customers, DSL often remains the only option. That leaves rural providers like Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink in better standing than larger companies like AT&T and Verizon.

Phone Companies

• AT&T‘s U-verse service is the only thing keeping AT&T broadband numbers on the rise. AT&T added 553,000 new U-verse customers during the summer and now serves 6.5 million customers on its fiber-to-the-neighborhood network. AT&T continues to lose DSL customers, primarily to local cable competitors.
• CenturyLink, Inc. has been upgrading its DSL service in several areas to better compete with cable broadband, and is also deploying a fiber-to-the-neighborhood service in select cities. The network upgrades are helping, bringing the company 18,000 new broadband customers. CenturyLink currently serves 5.76 million Internet customers nationwide.
• Frontier Communications has lost broadband customers in its larger service areas, mostly to cable, but those losses have been offset by its DSL expansion in rural areas that have never had broadband before. But the company only managed to add just under 6,000 new broadband customers during the last quarter, serving 1.78 million customers across the country.
• Verizon Communications: Verizon was willing to turn away potential DSL customers for the first time, as it discontinued selling DSL to those who don’t want Verizon landline service. That, and pervasive cable competition, meant Verizon only picked up 2,000 new DSL customers this quarter — the worst showing in four years. Verizon FiOS’ recent price hikes also cost the company some growth for its fiber to the home service,  but still earning a respectable 134,000 new customers (5.1 million total). Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and Comcast have all managed to win back FiOS customers with attractive discount offers.
• Windstream Corp. faces cable competition in a number of its semi-rural service areas, and its DSL service has not been able to keep up with the growing speeds available to cable broadband subscribers. For the first time, Windstream reported it lost more customers than it added, losing 2,200 DSL subscribers. Windstream still has 1.36 million customers signed up for its broadband service.

Cablevision has won back some of its former customers who went with Verizon FiOS but do not like the recent rate hikes.

Cable Companies

• Cablevision, which serves mostly suburban New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut added 25,000 new high speed customers, many coming back to the cable company from Verizon. Cablevision serves a relatively small geographic area, but a densely populated one. Nearly 3 million broadband customers have remained loyal to the cable company.
• Charter Cable picked up 37,000 new broadband customers, a number fleeing phone company DSL for Charter’s higher speed broadband services. Charter serves 3.8 million broadband customers.
• Comcast added 156,000 new customers to its roster of 18.7 million Internet customers, again mostly from former DSL customers.
• Time Warner Cable expanded with 59,000 new high speed customers, primarily from DSL disconnects. Time Warner provides service for 10.8 million broadband customers.

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).

One of the rural groups fighting to keep funding for rural broadband networks.

The Republican platform on telecommunications and its criticism of the Obama Administration’s handling of broadband inspired a blogger at the Washington Post to ponder the question, “Whatever happened to Obama’s goal of universal broadband access?”

Brad Plumer sees the Republican criticism as valid, at least on the surface:

Does anyone remember when the Obama administration promised to bring “true broadband [to] every community in America”? The Republican Party definitely does, and its 2012 platform criticizes the president for not making any progress on this pledge:

“The current Administration has been frozen in the past…. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband. It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage—after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers.

So whatever happened to the Obama administration’s plan to expand broadband access, anyway? In one sense, the Republican critics are right. Universal broadband is still far from a reality. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report, released in August, there are still 19 million Americans who lack access to wired broadband. Only about 94 percent of households have broadband access. Obama hasn’t achieved his goal.

Stop the Cap! has been watching the rural broadband debate since the summer of 2008, and believes the failure to do better isn’t primarily the fault of Republicans or Democrats — it lies with the nation’s phone companies — particularly AT&T and Verizon. But both political parties, to different degrees, have helped and hindered along the way.

Plumer slightly misstates the commitment of the Obama Administration at the outset. The Obama-Biden Plan never promised to successfully complete universal broadband access in the United States. Here is their actual pledge (emphasis ours):

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.

Big Phone Companies Struggle to Abandon Landlines in Rural America

The Obama-Biden Plan for broadband never promised you a rose garden. It simply promised the administration would get to work planting one.

By far, AT&T and Verizon Communications are the most culpable for leaving rural Americans without broadband service. Over the last four years, both companies have diverted investment away from their landline networks into wireless. AT&T has also spent millions lobbying state governments to free itself from the requirement of serving as “the carrier of last resort,” a critical matter for rural landline customers, particularly because rural wireless coverage remains lacking.

In most states, the dominant phone company is still mandated to provide basic telephone service to every customer who wants it. Universal electric and telephone service goes all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration, who saw both as essential to the rural economy.

The Communications Act of 1934 that the Republicans today dismiss as outdated established the concept of universal telephone service: “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

The concept of universal service was reaffirmed, with the blessing of the telephone companies, under the sweeping deregulation of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republicans call that law outdated as well.

Rural America Can’t Win Better Broadband If Their Providers Don’t Play

Decided not to participate in rural broadband funding programs.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Of those funds, the Act provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.

This first round of serious broadband stimulus was designed to help defray the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas where “return on investment” formulas used by large phone companies deemed them insufficiently profitable to service.

Remarkably, America’s largest phone companies declined to participate. In March 2009, AT&T and Verizon delivered their response to the Obama Administration through Bloomberg News:

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. may have this response to the U.S. government’s offer of $7.2 billion for high-speed Internet projects: Keep it.

Unlike the businesses that welcomed the $787 billion stimulus package approved by Congress last month, the two biggest U.S. phone companies have reservations. They’re urging the government not to help other companies compete with them through broadband grants or to set new conditions on how Internet access should be provided.

The companies have remained noncommittal as they lobby to shape rules for the grants.

“We do not have our hand out seeking government funds,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, told reporters March 11. While the company is “open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time,” he said AT&T’s primary focus for broadband is its own investment program.

Also declined to participate.

AT&T’s own financial reports illustrate its “investment program” was largely focused on its wireless services division, not rural broadband. Many other phone companies filed objections to projects they deemed invasive to their service areas, whether they actually provided broadband in those places or not.

When the final NTIA grant recipients were announced, the overwhelming majority were middle-mile or institutional broadband networks that would not provide broadband to any home or business.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service managed the rest of the broadband grants and loans, and the majority went to exceptionally rural telephone companies, co-ops, and tribal telecommunications. AT&T did participate in one aspect of broadband stimulus — its legal team and lobbyists appealed to grant administrators to change the rules to be more flexible about how and where grant money was spent.

In the past year, both AT&T and Verizon have signaled their true intentions for rural landline service:

Verizon’s McAdam: Ready to pull the plug on rural landlines.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam: “In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: “We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

More recently, Verizon has nearly disinherited its DSL service, making it more difficult to purchase (impossible in FiOS fiber to the home service areas). In states like West Virginia, it effectively slashed expansion and infrastructure investment as it prepared to exit the state, selling its network to Frontier Communications. AT&T has shown almost no interest expanding the coverage of its DSL service either. If you don’t have access to it today, you likely won’t tomorrow.

A good portion of the broadband stimulus funding provided by the government is actually in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. Despite rhetoric in the Republican platform about supporting public-private partnerships to expand rural broadband, the Republicans in Congress launched coordinated attacks on the Broadband Access Loan Program offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service in the spring of 2011. Various right-wing pundits and pressure groups joined forces with several Republican members of Congress attempting to permanently de-fund the program, starting with $700 million in federally-backed loans in April, 2011. The loans were targeted to public and private rural telecommunications companies attempting to expand or introduce broadband service.

Attacks on the effectiveness of President Obama’s broadband campaign pledges in the Republican platform ring a little hollow when Republican lawmakers actively blocked the administration’s efforts to keep those promises.

Killing Community Broadband: Priority #1 for Providers With the Help of Corporate-Backed ALEC and State Politicians

AT&T’s Stephenson: Doesn’t have a solution for the rural broadband problem, so why try?

Stop the Cap! has repeatedly reported on the challenges of community broadband in the United States. Launched by towns and villages to provide quality broadband service in areas where larger companies have either underserved or delivered no service at all, publicly-owned broadband is often the only chance a community has to stay competitive in the digital age.

That goal is shared by the GOP’s platform, which states how important it is to connect “rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

Unfortunately, unless your local phone or cable company is providing the service, all too often they would prefer communities continue to receive no service at all.

AT&T is among the most aggressive phone companies lobbying state officials, often through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to pass state laws hindering or banning community broadband development. ALEC supporters, overwhelmingly Republican, accept company-drafted legislation as their own and introduce it in state legislatures, hoping it will become law. Generous campaign contributions often follow.

In the past few years, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have been especially active in broadband backwater states like North and South Carolina and Georgia, where rural counties often receive nothing more than DSL service at speeds that no longer qualify as “broadband” under the Obama Administration’s National Broadband Plan. In North Carolina, Democratic state politicians well funded by Time Warner Cable helped push bills forward, but it took a Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature to finally get those laws enacted. South Carolina presented fewer challenges for state lawmakers, despite protests from communities across the state bypassed by AT&T and other phone companies.

The efforts to de-fund broadband stimulus and tie the hands of communities seeking their own broadband solutions have done considerable damage to the rural broadband expansion effort.

Universal Service Fund Reform: Not Much Help If America’s Largest Phone Companies Remain Uninterested

The Obama Administration has also kept its pledge to reform the Universal Service Fund, recreating it as the Connect America Fund (CAF) to help wire rural America.

Hopes for rural broadband drowned in the cement pond.

In its first phase of broadband funding, $300 million dollars became available to help subsidize the cost of rural broadband construction. Deemed a “mild stimulus” effort that would test the CAF’s grant mechanisms, only $115 million of the available funding was accepted by the nation’s phone companies — all independent providers like Frontier, FairPoint, CenturyLink, Windstream, and smaller players. Once again, both AT&T and Verizon refused to participate. There is no word yet on whether the two largest phone companies in the country will also effectively boycott the second round of funding, estimated to allocate over $1.8 billion to expand rural broadband.

“Getting to 100 percent is going to be a very difficult long-term goal, given the size of the U.S. landmass and the huge expense to reach those final couple of percentage points,” John Horrigan of the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute told Brad Plumer.

Politics and provider intransigence seem to be getting in the way just as much as America’s vast expanse. Many conservative and provider-backed groups have called America’s claimed 94% broadband availability rate a success story, and don’t see a need to fuss over the remaining six percent that cannot buy the service (and pointing to a larger number that don’t want the service at today’s prices).

Beyond the partisan obstructionism and middle mile/institutional network “successes” that ordinary consumers cannot access, the real issue remains the providers themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

It seems as long as AT&T and Verizon treat their rural landline customers as hayseed relatives they (and Wall Street) could do without, the rural broadband picture for customers of AT&T and Verizon will remain bleak at current stimulus levels regardless of which party promises what in their respective platforms.

The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: Frontier — “Rightsizing” Our Broadband Revenue in Barely-Competitive Markets, Even When It Costs Us Customers

“We have been very disciplined with our [data] pricing and really trying to make sure that we are moving the prices up in a right direction and looking at customers who are paying way below where they should be,” Donald R. Shassian, chief financial officer and executive vice president of Frontier Communications told investors on a conference call earlier this month. “They are not a valued customer. If we can’t get them up, we are sort of letting them disconnect off, if you would, and it’s enabling us to be more disciplined.”

That “direction” has meant higher bills for some long-standing customers that suddenly lost discounts or service credits. One common example is Frontier’s mandatory broadband modem rental fee, increasingly turning up on customer bills even though they own their own equipment or had previously arranged a fee waiver. Ex-Verizon customers were particularly hard hit when Frontier switched to its own billing platform. Just about every customer has also been impacted by Frontier’s “junk fees,” including company surcharges that effectively raise the price of the service.

As a result of higher pricing and dissatisfaction with the quality of service, some customers have disconnected, and the company recently reported second quarter profits were down 44%, offset by slightly higher earnings from higher bills.

The New Frontier

Frontier Communications has enormously expanded its reach over the past few years. Frontier’s original “legacy” service areas were dwarfed in 2010 by the company’s acquisition of 4.8 million landlines from Verizon Communications.

Frontier’s Combined Service Map — Areas in red are “legacy” Frontier service areas. Those in blue were acquired in 2010 from Verizon. (click to enlarge)

Frontier roughly tripled in size as a result, and the huge spike in customers delivered four straight quarters of triple-digit revenue growth. But the transition for ex-Verizon customers has not been easy. Customers endured billing errors, service plan confusion, and service quality issues as Frontier got up to speed managing Verizon’s landline network. A significant number of those customers have had enough and are switching to other providers.

West Virginia is the best place to study the contrast between Frontier’s failures and successes. A large number of service problems and lengthy outages plagued the state after Frontier took charge of a landline network Verizon treated as an afterthought. Over at least a decade, Verizon allowed its landline network to deteriorate to abysmal condition in several areas of the state. Little was invested to upgrade service, and Verizon ultimately left West Virginia with one of the lowest national broadband service penetration rates — about 60 percent.

Verizon’s priorities were elsewhere: spend millions on FiOS fiber upgrades in larger, urban markets while letting rural landline networks stagnate. Eventually, Verizon’s management team decided it was no longer worth hanging on to these low priority service areas and began selling them off. FairPoint Communications acquired Verizon customers in northern New England and Frontier bought mostly rural midwestern and western territories long struck from Verizon’s priority list.

Wilderotter

Frontier’s key argument for acquiring Verizon landlines was that the company could bank on deploying broadband to a much larger percentage of customers than Verizon ever bothered to serve.

Frontier places a very high priority on broadband, because the company can significantly boost the average revenue it earns from each customer by providing the service. With Frontier often the only home broadband choice around in its most rural markets, the company can charge whatever it wants for DSL service, tempered only by how much customers can afford to pay. Broadband is also a proven customer-keeper, an important consideration for any company facing ongoing losses from customers dumping landlines for cell phones.

Since its acquisition, Frontier has been aggressively deploying rural broadband in the former Verizon territories — typically the cheapest form it can deliver — 1-3Mbps ADSL service. Frontier considers its legacy service areas already well-covered, claiming around 93 percent of customers can already subscribe to Frontier DSL.

In states like West Virginia, the fact anyone is supplying anything resembling broadband has been well-received by those who have never had the service before. But where competition exists, Frontier has been losing ground (and customers) as cable competitors provide more consistent, higher speeds and quality of service.

The frustration is especially acute in the Mountain State. Steve Andrews, a Beckley resident complained, “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.” Andrews added that on most days his Frontier-provided broadband provides only around 800kbps, not the advertised 3Mbps.

Frontier Admits It Uses Government (Your) Money to Expand Broadband Where It Would Have Expanded Service on Its Own… Eventually

Frontier Communications was by far the most enthusiastic participant in the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF). This subsidy program currently covers $775 of the cost to extend broadband service to a currently unserved customer. Frontier agreed to accept nearly $72 million from the program, which commits the company to offering at least 4Mbps broadband service to an additional 92,877 homes and businesses around the country.

But Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, admitted Frontier would have eventually spent its own money to extend service to those rural customers without a subsidy:

“Get broadband out faster to a bunch of customers that we would have built anyway, at some point in time. And it also accomplishes the objectives of using the funds that are available from the FCC. We actually could have taken more money…. So we felt good about it. We totally understand why the other carriers made the decisions they made because we didn’t — we’re not building anything on our legacy markets. So it’s the money. It’s all in the acquired properties where we still had pretty low penetration with enough density to support the parameters that the FCC put in place.”

The fund, paid for by telephone customers nationwide through a surcharge on customer bills, will also subsidize a lucrative business opportunity for Frontier, according to Wilderotter.

“These are unserved locations that really are not competitive at all,” Wilderotter told investors. “So there’s no competition in those areas. So we’re pretty excited about it. We think that this is going to be good for Frontier and good overall.”

More than $38 million of the total broadband subsidy Frontier received will be spent in 30 counties in just one state: Wisconsin. Among other locations where Frontier will spend the money:

• 1 Arizona county
• 2 California counties
• 1 Florida county
• 5 Idaho counties
• 25 Illinois counties
• 2 Indiana counties
• 26 Michigan counties
• 2 Nevada counties
• 8 New York counties
• 1 North Carolina county
• 8 Ohio counties
• 5 Oregon counties
• 2 Tennessee counties
• 7 Washington counties
• 25 West Virginia counties

Trying to Hang Onto Customers Frontier Already Has… With Serious Speed Boosts

Frontier’s speed plans through 2013.

One of the loudest and most consistent complaints Frontier broadband customers mention is the slow speeds they receive from Frontier’s DSL. Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps in rural areas, up to 10Mbps in urban areas. But in fact many customers report their speeds are much lower than advertised. Data from the FCC’s national broadband speed measurement program bears this out. Frontier was the only measured provider in the United States that has been losing ground in promised broadband speed and performance.

Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.

In highly competitive, urban markets Frontier will deploy VDSL2 technology which can support significantly faster and more reliable Internet speeds. In more rural markets, bonded ADSL 2+ will deliver speeds of 10Mbps or better to customers currently stuck with around 1-2Mbps speed.

Daniel J. McCarthy, president and chief operating officer:

• We expect our 20Mbps service to move from 28% of residential households today to 42% by year-end and then 52% by the end of 2013;
• The 12Mbps services planned to increase from 33% of homes today to 51% by year-end and 60% by 2013;
• And the 6Mbps service is planned to increase from 57% of homes today to 74% by year-end and 80% by 2013.

The new speeds will not come free of charge. Customers will be marketed speed upgrades for additional monthly fees.

Customers will also discover Frontier has been simplifying its packages and moving away from high-value promotional offers that bundled a free laptop, television, or satellite dish in return for a lengthy contract. Today, the company is emphasizing increasing discounts for customers subscribing to two or more services that include telephone/long distance, broadband, and satellite television.

Speeds Going Up, Employees (and their salaries) Going Down

Finally, Frontier executives told investors they are scouring the company looking for cost savings. They appear to have identified around $100 million worth, a good portion of which will come from employees facing job cuts or salary reductions.

Wilderotter said she is focusing on call center workers, retiree positions, and “tech op” savings.

“We still have some bubble workforce in the call centers that will continue to go away,” Wilderotter told Wall Street. “We have a number of employees, too, that are going to be retiring over these next several months. And our goal is not to replace any of those retirees either.”

One of the best examples of this cost savings, according to unions representing Frontier employees, is the forthcoming closure of an Idaho-based call center in Coeur d’Alene. More than 100 workers, average age 55, will lose their $15-21/hour jobs Sept. 18 while Frontier prepares to leverage cheaper labor in South Carolina.

Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.