As Stop the Cap! first reported last summer, the state of West Virginia is embroiled in a growing scandal over how the state spent more than $126 million in federal institutional broadband expansion funds it was awarded in 2010.

Sources inside two small community libraries and a regional government office collectively contacted Stop the Cap! this week warning that some of the targets for broadband funding including schools, government offices, and libraries have been handed world-class broadband networks they cannot operate without ongoing support not included in the grant.  With little chance of funding, many institutions will be unable to pay the monthly service rates and maintenance fees charged to keep the networks running.

“We are getting a Hummer network on a Kia operating budget,” one community library official tells Stop the Cap! “The network sounds great, but in our case we have to find the money to pay the bill to run it every month, and that money is hard to find in a library with five outdated public terminals.”

Another source tells us installers left more than one library with equipment nobody knew how to operate.

The Cisco 3900 router series

“They installed it over the course of a few days and just left, and nobody here knows how it works,” the librarian tells us. “We’ve quietly gone back to our old Wi-Fi system until we can figure these things out. We don’t even have their phone number.”

At a library in Hurricane, librarian Rebecca Elliot said workers who showed up to install the router didn’t leave behind instructions or a user manual either.

“I don’t know much about those kinds of things,” Elliot told the AP. “I just work here.”

While the original purpose of the grant was to “improve broadband” in the Mountain State, the funding came with significant restrictions that targeted the money exclusively for institutional broadband networks that do not serve individual residences or businesses. While West Virginians languished with some the country’s worst broadband service, state officials were green-lighting spending on grossly oversized equipment that institutional users simply don’t need and sometimes cannot afford to operate.

Martin

One critic, Jim Martin, president of business broadband provider Citynet said last summer the state gave preferential treatment to Frontier Communications to construct networks that ultimately favored them as the logical choice of service provider, but left small institutions with service bills they can never hope to pay.

“Where is the accountability,” Martin asked this week.

His fears appear to be justified. This week, a consulting firm has been hired by the state to audit how more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent after reports in the Charleston press brought news the state paid millions to deploy equipment to facilities that did not need any service improvements.

The Charleston Gazette reports it found 366 unused routers valued at more than $22,000 each in storage.  They have been there for two years.  In fact, at least $24 million was spent on routers designed to be used by large corporations or universities that were installed in libraries and public safety centers with just a handful of personal computers. Experts say a basic retail router priced at $50 could have provided more than acceptable service to these locations.

West Virginia’s state Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette on Monday admitted, more than two years after the state won the grant, now might be a good time to hire a consultant that does not work for a company trying to sell the state broadband equipment or services.

Despite the suggestion the state designed its network improvements based on the recommendation of equipment vendors, Burdette sought to move on and avoid “finger-pointing” and “dwelling on past decisions.”

Burdette

“I don’t want to spend a lot of time on things we cannot change,” Burdette told the Gazette. “If we made mistakes, then we need to look at how do we take lemons and make lemonade.”

“That’s the most expensive glass of lemonade in the history of West Virginia,” replies our source inside a regional government office. “Imagine what that money could have done extending broadband service to the homes and businesses that do not have it today.”

Our source says the state government is engaged in classic “butt-covering” with the announced state audit.

“Of course the report will blame people lower down in government while leaving the oversight failure for another day,” he tells us. “What’s a hundred million in taxpayer money, right?”

Burdette and other state officials might have listened to the state’s own Office of Technology, whose administrator warned that the routers — the Cisco series 3945 — “may be grossly oversized.”  Other state and library officials also questioned the purchases.  Burdette said the state should have hired a consultant before purchasing the equipment and launching the expansion project, which will not deliver a single broadband connection to any resident or business in the state.

Martin said in 2011 the entire grant process was wrong-headed from the beginning.  Martin says the state should have spent the money on a stronger middle-mile network to boost capacity for everyone in the state.

Now West Virginia is in a hurry to spend the remainder of the grant award — an undetermined amount — before the grant spending expiration date is reached. Unspent funds must be returned to the federal government.

State officials promise they will find a home for every unused router by the time the stimulus grant expires. That could leave a rural county sheriff’s office with a router designed to serve a minimum of 500 concurrent users in a facility with fewer than a dozen aging personal computers.

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

When broadband advocates talk about the advantages of fiber-to-the-home service, commercial providers and their friends routinely criticize us for demanding “Cadillac” networks in areas that “don’t need” fiber-fast broadband speeds. Despite the fact the United States and Canada continue to fall further and further behind in the global broadband speed race, companies that answer to stockholders simply won’t hear of upgrading networks to the technology Asia and Europe increasingly takes for granted.

There is no question fiber broadband is costly to build, especially in rural communities where the cost per home will require a long-term payback for the upfront investment required. But that doesn’t stop community-owned networks and public co-ops from advancing forward.

Dakota Central Telecommunications and Dickey Rural Networks last month celebrated the completion of the largest fiber-to-the-home network in North America… in rural North Dakota.

Both providers, operated as co-ops, deliver speedy service to every home and business within a 10,000 square mile area.  Broadband at speeds of 20Mbps starts at $39.95 a month.  Want faster speeds? For $89.95 a month, you can purchase 50Mbps service.  A triple-play package of phone, broadband, and cable TV service runs $113.75 a month.

While DSL has been available in the past, it simply could not deliver the 21st century broadband speeds businesses and consumers need.

Both providers, collectively owned by the members who subscribe to the service, spent a combined $90 million on the expansive fiber network. But instead of throwing a hissyfit over the price tag, the collective feeling was this represents an investment in North Dakota’s future. Area businesses have already taken advantage of the new speeds to improve efficiency and think about new ways they can market their products and services online.

The decision to deploy fiber to the home service made sense because of its infinite expandability, dependability, and capacity.  Commercial providers like AT&T and Verizon that embarked on fiber upgrades deploy them only in the largest cities, where the cost per subscriber is lower and where investors believe the costs to build the networks will be recouped the fastest.  Now both companies have declared those networks to be largely complete, leaving large numbers of their customers off the upgrade list, stuck indefinitely with yesterday’s DSL technology.

That isn’t happening with community-owned providers and co-ops, where the goal remains to reach every possible customer. Rapid cost recovery is not the highest priority — delivering good service in their communities is. Most are willing to wait a little longer to pay off network construction costs in return for better service for everyone today.

USDA Under Secretary Dallas Tonsager says North Dakota’s fiber network is a “great role model” for the rest of the country.

“We’re going to use you as an example over and over and over again,” he said.

The USDA administers grants for rural broadband networks to help expand broadband service in underserved/unserved rural areas.

[flv width=”475″ height=”288″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAY Fargo South central North Dakota touts largest fiber optic broadband network in the nation 4-11-12.flv[/flv]

WDAY in Fargo traveled to the unveiling of North America’s largest fiber broadband network and talked with residents about the transformational nature of fiber broadband.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/North Dakota Fiber 4-12.flv[/flv]

This video shows how south-central North Dakota managed to build a fiber network that reaches every home within a 10,000 square mile area and how it is changing lives.  (7 minutes)

Verizon Wireless’ answer for rural America’s broadband troubles goes live across the country today, offering the broadband deprived the opportunity of getting wireless service at almost twice the price of conventional DSL, with a 10GB monthly usage allowance.

HomeFusion Broadband uses Verizon’s LTE network to deliver service to homes and businesses within range of Verizon’s 4G network.  For rural America, the speeds Verizon is capable of delivering offer a significant improvement over rural DSL.  Verizon promises 5-12Mbps down and 2-5Mbps up, depending on how many users are sharing the cell tower and how strong a signal one receives.

“HomeFusion Broadband is another example of Verizon Wireless’ commitment to providing our customers with the most innovative products and services,” said Tami Erwin, vice president and chief marketing officer, Verizon Wireless. “With HomeFusion Broadband, customers across the United States, in towns large and small, will have the chance to link devices to the Internet and take advantage of the speed, coverage and connectivity offered by our 4G LTE network.”

Whether they can afford it may be another matter.

Verizon Wireless charges a one-time equipment fee of $199.99, which includes professional installation of the required cylindrical outdoor antenna and router that allows customers to share the wireless connection with other devices inside the home.

Monthly service fees start at $60 a month and include 10GB of monthly usage. If you need more data, you will pay a significant amount to get it — up to $120 a month for 30GB of usage.  As a tease, customers get 50 percent more data allowance for the first two full billing cycles of service.  If you become accustomed to using that extra allowance, it could be very costly once the first two months are up.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB.

Verizon claims two-thirds of the country is now covered by their 4G LTE network, including the regions Verizon sold off to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications.  Those independent phone companies will soon have Verizon as a broadband competitor in states like West Virginia, Vermont, Ohio, and Maine. If customers value speed over everything else, Verizon could be a formidable competitor over traditional rural DSL, which often operates at speeds of 1-3Mbps, as long as customers steer clear of allowance-eating online video.

Verizon has positioned HomeFusion as a rural broadband solution, and earlier pricing and policy changes make it clear Verizon is downplaying its traditional DSL service.  In April, Verizon announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL service to customers without voice phone lines, or to those who live in areas also wired for the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

Back in the days of dial-up Internet access, consumers could choose from a dozen or more independent providers selling service from prices ranging from free (for a limited number of hours per month) to $20-25 a month for unlimited dial-in access.  As long as an ISP maintained a local access number, they could set up shop and sell service at competitive prices in virtually any community in the country.

For awhile it seemed that this competition would continue as the days of broadband DSL arrived.  Phone companies like Qwest opened their network to third party competitors who could lease access to company facilities and lines and market their own DSL service.  In states like Minnesota, Qwest customers could choose from several providers, including Qwest itself, and receive service at competitive pricing.  But in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission announced phone companies no longer had to share their phone network with other providers.

It was the beginning of the end for independent service providers in that state and others.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that out of 47 independent ISPs that existed in the Twin Cities area alone in 2005, only about a dozen remain today — and many of those can count customers in the hundreds.  In fact, business has dwindled so badly, many providers no longer actively market DSL services to consumers.

The 2005 FCC policy allows phone companies to cut off the independents as network upgrades are completed. What service can be sold by independents in Minnesota is speed restricted as well — only up to 7Mbps. Even at those increasingly uncompetitive speeds, CenturyLink makes sure customers are notified they can no longer buy DSL service from independent companies once their upgrades are finished.

Today, the march forward for incrementally faster DSL broadband speeds at CenturyLink (which acquired Qwest), continues to force more and more competitors out of the broadband business.  Many of the remaining customers are located in rural or suburban exchanges only now seeing network upgrades.  But some companies are not waiting for the last of their customers to depart.  Implex.net saw the writing on the wall and decided to exit the business, telling the newspaper they could not compete with CenturyLink, much less Comcast.

“It was a dying business because we could only sell old technology,” said Stuart DeVaan, CEO of Implex.net in Minneapolis.

US Internet of Minnetonka also realized selling DSL was not going to be a growth business under current FCC rules.

“If you are a traditional Internet service provider from the mid-’90s that relies on someone else’s network, you’re at a serious disadvantage,” said Travis Carter, technology vice president at US Internet.

CenturyLink denies the FCC policy limits competition, pointing to cable operators, Wi-Fi, and wireless mobile broadband as all viable alternative choices for consumers.

But Bill Kalseim, who lives in rural Stillwater, having received notification he is about to be cut off from his ISP — ipHouse — thinks otherwise.

“I had a choice of DSL providers before, and now I don’t.” Kalseim told the newspaper.