Glenice Maclellan, Telstra's point person on broadband, has recently discovered Australians don't just want to browse the web and read e-mail on their broadband service.

Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, has responded to customers leaving their broadband service over its fraudband speeds and paltry usage caps by increasing both, but not nearly enough to change perceptions that Australian providers still serve up slow, overpriced and restrictive service.

Telstra’s CEO David Thodey, who replaced the oft-despised Sol Trujillo, told investors what every Australian contemplating broadband service already knows: “In some parts of the market we’ve gone too far out of line and we need to come back. We must focus on our core business and our customers, this is where we create value for shareholders. At its simplest, the next stage in Telstra’s long-term strategy is to focus on satisfying customers, invest in new capabilities, and drive growth in new businesses.”

Thodey’s approach is to do away with the company’s downright lousy “broadband” service in many rural areas of Australia.  More accurately called “fraudband,” there are still many Australians suffering with Telstra BigPond service that tops out at a ridiculously slow 256kbps.  And because company officials suspect you’ll even use that too much, they slapped a usage cap as low as 200 megabytes on the service, with a war crime overlimit fee of $0.15 per megabyte thereafter.  Your low price?  $27US a month.  For that.  But you can double your allowance to 400 megabytes for a mere $9US more per month.  Grab the bargain.

Effective December 1st, Telstra will move its rural customers to 1996-level broadband service, offering 1.5Mbps minimum to those doing their web surfing over DSL lines.  For those paying $27 a month, they’re increasing your usage allowance to a still-paltry 2 gigabytes per month, and leaving the $0.15/mb overlimit fee in place.  Most DSL customers stuck on these plans will be herded up to the $36 a month plan which is “generous” in comparison with a new download quota of 12 gigabytes per month and no overlimit fee.  Instead, once you hit your limit, they cut your speed to 64kbps for the rest of the month.

Oh but wait, there are some more gotchas:

• Unless you are bundling your molasses-slow Internet service with a phone line package that brings Telstra at least $81US per month in revenue, add $9 to these plan prices.  You wouldn’t want Telstra management to go home hungry, would you?
• Uploads are also a part of your usage allowance.
• Many of their plans lock you in with a 24-month service commitment.  They’ve got you right where they want you.

If you find Telstra’s Oliver Twistian-usage allowances leave you hungry for more, no worries.  Telstra will happily upgrade your service to a higher usage plan, with correspondingly higher prices, by the following day.  That’s good to know if Microsoft obliterated a good part of your usage allowance for the month with critical Windows updates.

Or you could always take your business elsewhere, as many budget conscious Australians have.  Thodey’s fear about out-of-touch broadband pricing is real when considering Telstra’s competitor iiNet offers 4GB (2GB peak/2GB off peak) for just about the same price Telstra charges for its $27 a month/200 megabyte plan.

The company has also recently discovered that Australians want to use their broadband service for more than just web browsing and e-mail.  That’s apparently news to Telstra management, who threw this into their PR push:

“Telstra’s new plans cater for the changing ways Australians use broadband for communications and entertainment at home.  Gone are the days when broadband was used only to check email or internet surf. Australian families now also use broadband to download videos, play online games, or check social networking sites all at the same time”. — Glenice Maclellan, the Acting Group Managing Director of the Consumer division, Telstra

Thanks, Glenice.  The only problem here is that Australians didn’t get to do those things much because of your rationed broadband plans which either overcharged them if they tried, or speed throttled them back to dial-up as a reminder not to be a naughty data hog.

Now, Australians can at least feed at the trough… for a little while.

Telstra offers other plans, which vary on whether you qualify for ADSL 1 service (original DSL) or live in an urban/suburban area upgraded for ADSL 2 or cable modem service.  All prices hereafter are in Australian dollars – $10AUD = $0.91US at time of writing):

New Broadband Pricing for full service fixed phone customers

Those prices are enough to give North American providers dreams of Money Parties in their heads forever.  Only Time Warner Cable came close with their infamous $150 unlimited usage plan they tried to stick customers with in several cities this past April.

That platinum-deluxe BigPond Liberty 200GB plan bundled with a TV package will cost you more than $4,560US over the life of the 24-month contract.

Australians continue to wait for a National Broadband Network plan that the government says should finally free Australians from a life of being told you have to spend more… a lot more, to save just a little from companies like Telstra.

A spoof on Telstra’s BigPond Internet Support Call Center (1 minute)

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/There’s a Map for That 1.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” Advertising Campaign: Spot 2 (pre-revision — includes “out of touch” language (30 seconds)

Verizon's advertising only displays network coverage of 3G service areas

AT&T Mobility has filed suit against Verizon Wireless in the Northern District Court of Georgia (Atlanta Division) demanding the court order Verizon to stop running ads that suggest AT&T has lousy wireless 3G data coverage.

The suit comes in response to a series of advertisements from Verizon that compare the coverage maps of both companies “3G” wireless data networks.  The term “3G” refers to the third generation (3G) of mobile telephony standards – IMT-2000.  In general terms, local wireless networks upgraded to provide 3G service can provide much faster wireless data speeds than those still operating under older standards like “2G.”

Verizon Wireless has aggressively deployed 3G upgrades across its service area, while AT&T has largely focused on more urban population centers for their 3G upgrades, something Verizon’s advertising calls out.

The crux of the suit is exactly how Verizon depicts the differences in coverage.

AT&T claims the ads leave viewers with the impression that those vast white areas depicted on the coverage map designated by Verizon as “AT&T,” are areas without any data coverage at all.  Most cell phone company coverage maps routinely depict “no service” areas in white, and AT&T claims Verizon underlined the impression in its ads, including one on radio, that included the phrase “out of touch” when speaking about non-3G AT&T service areas.  AT&T described the ad above as showing “a frustrated or sad AT&T customer sitting alone on a bench because she is not able to use her wireless device to meet up with her friends.”

AT&T Mobility’s own coverage map depicts data coverage in varying hues of blue, designating the different types of data service coverage available nationwide, but those different hues and service areas only become apparent after starting to zoom in on specific regions of the country.

AT&T's "Nationwide" Coverage Map for Data

AT&T's coverage map changes when you zoom in, depicting the different types of network standards used in different areas. This map of eastern Texas shows coverage ranging from 3G to woefully slow EDGE networks owned by "AT&T partner" companies

On AT&T’s maps, areas in white are labeled “no service available.”

On October 7th, AT&T Mobility contacted Verizon Wireless and demanded that they either cease the ads or modify them to make them, in AT&T’s words, “less misleading.”

In response, Verizon dropped the “out of touch” language from the ads and inserted a fine print disclaimer at the bottom indicating “Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas.”

AT&T considers the modifications inadequate and filed the lawsuit asking for a cessation of the ads and monetary damages from perceived ill-gotten profits from Verizon snatching away AT&T customers.

Verizon’s defense?  Accuracy.  Verizon Wireless’ ads never stop referring to “3G service” and both maps include specifically labeled “3G Coverage.”

AT&T argues that their network is actually more expansive than Verizon’s, when you also include AT&T’s more prevalent 2G and earlier wireless data standards.  But that’s arguing apples and oranges.  Verizon intends to promote and leverage benefits from upgrading its service areas, large and small, to 3G service.  AT&T has not done that, and in fact has been on the receiving end of criticism from customers frustrated at times with the poor performance of its network, including slow data speeds, dropped calls, and insufficient coverage in certain areas.

Verizon's ads clearly depict "3G Coverage" on their map comparison

The gadget enthusiast press has not been enthusiastic about AT&T’s lawsuit, wishing the company would be as enthusiastic with network upgrades as they are engaging their legal team to fight Verizon, or is little more than a whining villain that has been exposed for its inadequacies.

AT&T customers frustrated with their mobile experience are probably still better off than T-Mobile customers, some of whom spent much of yesterday with no service at all.  In the second nationwide outage in two months, T-Mobile claims about two million customers nationwide experienced voice and data service outages for much of the day, although anecdotal reports suggest a company estimate of “five percent of customers impacted” is low.  No explanation for the outage was given.  This comes after an embarrassing server failure in October which led to some T-Mobile Sidekick customers being without service for up to a month, as well as a loss of stored data which company officials have slowly tried to restore weeks after the system crashed.

Charleston, West Virginia is just one of many cities potentially served by Frontier

Frontier Communications has won approval from state utility commissions in California, South Carolina, and Nevada to take over telephone service currently provided by Verizon Communications.  The decisions were unanimous in all three votes by Commission members, and involve telephone service in several small communities in all three states.

Circles represent Verizon service areas transferred to Frontier in Nevada and California

Verizon’s castoffs serve a small percentage of customers, which made the transaction fly under the media radar in most cases.  In California, Verizon dumps customers in a small section on the northwest border with Oregon.  In Nevada, several small communities south of Reno are involved.  In South Carolina, Verizon drops scattered groups of customers in small clusters across the state.

These state regulatory approvals follow an October 27 announcement by Frontier that its shareholders have approved the transaction, which will result in Frontier owning Verizon’s wireline operations in all or parts of 14 states.

While the approval appeared pro forma in those three states, West Virginia is another matter.  Strong employee union and consumer group protests continue across the state, with many consumers concerned about the implications of Frontier controlling nearly all wired phone lines in the state.  The Communications Workers of America held a conference call with the media Wednesday to outline its opposition to the deal.

The CWA has been a vocal opponent of the deal, claiming it will risk West Virginia’s telecommunications future with a company without the financial capacity to provide the type of advanced services Verizon is providing in other states.  Kenneth Peres, an economist with the Communications Workers of America, said the deal was extremely risky for consumers, workers and the affected communities.

Peres pointed to the perfect record of three out of three failures for earlier Verizon spinoffs.  FairPoint Communications declared bankruptcy early this week after trying to take on the service needs of three New England states.

Peres told the Charleston Daily Mail that if the deal goes through, Frontier “will find it extremely difficult” to meet its $8 billion in debt obligations while simultaneously investing enough capital to maintain its physical plant, improve service quality, set up a new system in West Virginia, lease systems from Verizon in 13 other states, provide video service for the first time (in Indiana), and ensure adequate staffing “while paying out a lot more in dividends than it makes in profits.”

Frontier went on the attack Thursday, accusing the union of interfering just to grab concessions for itself.

Verizon service areas sold off to Frontier in South Carolina

Steve Crosby, Frontier spokesman, said, “They’re just throwing stuff up against the wall. They know this is a good transaction and they’re trying to extract their pound of flesh. They want more concessions. This is their opportunity to ask for more money for their union membership and more benefits. That’s what they want. Union membership across the country is declining. This is how they’re trying to extract as much as they can from either Frontier or Verizon.”

As for Frontier’s debt load, “This is actually a de-leveraging transaction,” Crosby said. “We’re taking on debt but we’re taking on a whole lot more revenue. We’re currently at a 3.8 times revenue-to-debt ratio, going down to 2.6. So we actually get better in terms of revenue to debt. And today we’re fine. We’re able to pay a nice dividend. The day the transaction closes, we are approaching investment-grade borrowings.

“Our board of directors made the decision to lower our dividend by 25 percent when the transaction closes to give us even more cash to invest in infrastructure and to give us even more financial flexibility,” Crosby said.

“Every time we have an argument we win and they bring up other stuff,” Crosby said. “They never bring up the de-leveraging because it undermines their argument. They never bring up the fact that we will reduce our dividend because it undermines their argument.

“We have said we will maintain employment levels for 18 months” after the transaction closes, Crosby said. Because of required regulatory approvals and other factors, the deal can’t close before April 2010.

“So you can figure that’s two years,” Crosby said. “Who nowadays has that kind of job security? I think we’re bending over backwards. I wish I had the pension plan, the job security the CWA has. They’re looking at extracting more from Verizon and Frontier.”

When asked by the newspaper why Frontier shareholders would approve a deal that was destined for failure, Peres told the newspaper:

Frontier’s business model is built on acquisitions. Frontier bought a portion of Global Crossing’s business which increased revenue and access lines “but that began to decline,” he said. “They bought Commonwealth Telephone but that’s flat-lining. What’s the next step? What were they going to do – improve infrastructure or go through the acquisitions route again?” Continuing with acquisitions “postpones the day of reckoning,” he said.

Commentary: Our Take

Crosby’s comments seem more suited for a talk show audience that hates unions.  Obviously the union does not think this is a good deal for West Virginia, and considering the track record of earlier Verizon deals, and the correct predictions from employee unions on their inevitable outcomes, they have every right to oppose the deal on its face.  Crosby apparently has time to address declining union membership, but not the much more relevant decline in the traditional phone company’s bread and butter business – landlines.  Frontier, like other phone companies, continues to see disconnect requests coming from coast to coast as customers dump the phone company for a cable digital phone product, Voice Over IP line, or rely on their cellphone.

West Virginia would be solidly Frontier territory if the state approves the sale

Verizon recognizes their traditional business is a dying one, which is why they are in a hurry to diversify into competitive broadband and video services over their fiber optic FiOS network.  Where it doesn’t make economic sense (under their current business plan) for Verizon to deploy FiOS, decisions are being made about whether to keep those smaller phone operations within the Verizon family, or sell them off to companies like Frontier.  What Frontier acquires today from the standpoint of customers and revenues could represent the high water mark, and without offering robust options for a digital future, Frontier will likely continue to see customer erosion.

FairPoint acquired seemingly healthy Verizon companies serving the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  When their efforts to seamlessly combine Verizon’s legacy systems with FairPoint’s own systems failed, that along with an inability to properly service customers, caused a death spiral as customers dropped service, which led FairPoint straight into bankruptcy.

Frontier’s record of investment and service in western New York speaks for itself.  Time Warner Cable eats Frontier for lunch, with less expensive “digital phone” service, much faster and more reliable broadband, and a video package that Frontier doesn’t offer (reselling DISH Network is hardly the same as providing video service that doesn’t come from a third party company’s satellite dish nailed to the roof).  Frontier is ready and willing to stick with DSL service at speeds that are basically maxed out.  Time Warner Cable evidently doesn’t even consider Frontier a significant enough player to deploy upgrades in this area while they are in a hurry to provide them where Verizon FiOS is under construction.

When a company isn’t prepared to keep up with the rest of New York with fiber deployment to the home, the chances of that kind of service reaching West Virginia anytime soon are near zero.

But Frontier’s unique position as a specialist in “rural service” allows it to eke out an existence in areas where cable isn’t a big competitive threat, and where any broadband is better than no broadband at all, at least for now.  But without a plan for keeping up with the fast changing broadband world, customers happy with 3Mbps service today will despise the company for being stuck with those speeds later.  A lot of people in Rochester sure aren’t happy being stuck with Frontier DSL, and that nasty 5GB “reasonable use” language in the Acceptable Use Policy.

Crosby’s comments about CWA member job security, which he evidently envies, says more about the union’s commitment to its members than Frontier has to him.  Perhaps Crosby can quit his spokesman job and switch to a position that gets him CWA membership with a pension and job security.  Perhaps if the people of West Virginia say thanks, but no thanks, Frontier will be in a better economic state than it would be if this mega-deal collapses under the weight of debt and integration challenges.  Then Crosby can keep his job with the evidently lousy benefits.

Peres’ assumption that Frontier lives only through acquisitions isn’t the complete story.  Just like the myth sharks must constantly swim to survive, Frontier doesn’t constantly have to acquire to survive either.  It does have to concern itself with an ever-consolidating telephone line industry, where the smaller independent companies continue to be snapped up by a dwindling number of players.  If a Windstream or CenturyTel comes along with a great offer, Frontier itself may have a new name — Windstream or CenturyTel.

The economies of scale and cost savings are routinely cited by investors promoting consolidation.  It’s no surprise Frontier shareholders voted for the deal.  Bigger is often better for many investors, as long as the quarterly financials play to their interests.  Listening to Frontier investor conference calls, the Wall Street bankers, and the media that support them, are constantly concerned with keeping costs cut to the bone, customer defection limited, risk reasonable, and that dividend being paid.  They are satisfied with Frontier’s rural, less competitive market focus, even if the customers that end up served by them are not.

Your Money = Their Money

Time Warner Cable has mailed letters to subscribers in its Northeast Ohio and Western Pennsylvania division announcing that “with many of our fixed costs escalating, we are forced to adjust the prices of some of our services accordingly.”

That price adjustment takes Road Runner’s 7Mbps broadband service to $49.95 per month, if the subscriber also takes cable-TV service from Time Warner, according to one subscriber in Cleveland.  Another subscriber in Erie, Pennsylvania also noticed Road Runner Lite was also increasing in price to $24.95 per month with the rate change, effective November 24th.

A Canton, Ohio subscriber sent Stop the Cap! a copy of the letter their family received regarding the rate hike.

The company suggests customers might use the letter as a motivation to inquire about subscribing to even more services from Time Warner as part of a bundled package.

An Alliance, Ohio subscriber called the company’s rate increase pathetic, noting the division has some slow broadband speeds compared with other Road Runner service areas.

“With 768kbps upload speed, give us more then we will pay more,” he writes.

Time Warner's letter to customers in northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania (courtesy: kba4)