Alcatel-Lucent reported this month next generation DSL technology is a success for the company, with more than five million customers outside of North America now getting speeds up to 100Mbps over ordinary copper telephone lines.

VDSL2 line vectoring delivers more than twice the speed of AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood U-verse service, and has proved reliable for simultaneous television, broadband, and telephone usage. It will even support 4K video streaming of ultra high-definition video.

Vectoring employs sophisticated noise cancelling to cut “crosstalk” interference to boost broadband performance. Testing has shown VDSL2 line vectoring can offer 100/30Mbps service with copper lengths as long as 1,600 feet. Most VDSL2 services are delivered over telephone networks that replace at least some copper wiring with fiber.

Alcatel-Lucent has shipped enough VDSL2 vectoring equipment to provide service to five million customers, surpassing non-vectored VDSL2. But practically none of the equipment is headed to North American ISPs. Instead, companies including Belgium’s Belgacom, Israel’s Bezeq, KPN in the Netherlands, Telecom Argentina, Telecom Italia, TE Data in Egypt and NBN Co. in Australia have launched vectoring technology, offering service to customers at speeds topping out at 70-100Mbps.

Most customers switched to VDSL2 vectoring see their speeds double, usually from 30Mbps to 70Mbps or more. Providers like Belgacom have been careful to only promise speeds the company can actually deliver. Belgacom’s own tests found 100Mbps service was only completely reliable when the amount of copper between the customer and the company’s fiber connection was kept less than 650 feet, so it has capped customer speeds at 70Mbps for now.

“The prime goal in DSL must be signal quality, integrity, robustness and stability for perfect video grade services,” says the Belgian ISP.

Vectoring technology has been on the drawing board for a decade and is only now achieving success in the market.

Many ISPs are choosing to deploy vectoring because it is less costly than a fiber upgrade and can still meet the speed goals demanded by government regulators. The technology has proven robust even where copper wire networks have degraded. In several European countries, homes are still serviced by indoor copper wiring insulated with paper sheaths.

Alcaltel-Lucent believes even after vectoring is widely deployed, it won’t be a dead-end for DSL service.

The company is working on its next generation “Phantom Mode” technology that combines VDSL2 bonding and VDSL2 vectoring with a traditional voice technology called “phantom transmission.” This combination adds a virtual channel to create three channels over 2 pairs of phone wiring.

In Phantom Mode tests, the company achieved 300Mbps over 2 pairs at 400 meters and 1Gbps (up and down-stream combined) over 4 pairs.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Alcatel Lucent DSL Vectoring 5-2014.flv[/flv]

Alcatel-Lucent produced this video explaining vectoring technology. (A “CPE” means customer-premises equipment, in this case the DSL modem.) (3:09)

Phone companies looking for a cheap way to increase broadband speeds are turning away from fiber optics and towards advanced forms of DSL that don’t bring cost objections from shareholders.

Whether your provider is AT&T or an ISP in Europe or Australia, financial pressure to improve broadband on the cheap is fueling research to wring the last kilobit out of decades-old copper phone wiring.

Alcatel-Lucent suggests VDSL2 Vectoring is one such technology that can enable download speeds up to 100Mbps using noise-cancelling technology to suppress interference.

But the advice doesn’t impress fiber optic fans who suggest any reliance on deteriorating copper phone lines simply postpones an inevitable fiber upgrade that could come at a higher cost down the road.

VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast are only as good as the copper wiring that extends to each customer. Up to 45 percent of North American wire pairs are in some state of disrepair.

Vectoring has been described as “pixie dust” by Australia’s former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Conroy was overseeing Australia’s switch to fiber service as part of the National Broadband Network. But a change in government has scrapped those plans in favor of a cheaper fiber to the neighborhood broadband upgrade advocated by the new Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that resembles AT&T’s U-verse.

“Malcolm can sprinkle pixie dust around and call it vectoring and he can do all that sort of stuff but he cannot guarantee upload speeds,” Conroy told Turnbull.

As with all forms of DSL, speed guarantees are extremely difficult to provide because the technology only performs as well as the copper wiring that connects a neighborhood fiber node to a customer’s home or office. Upload speeds are, in practical terms, significantly slower than download speeds with VDSL2. Turnbull expected download and upload speeds on Australia’s VDSL2 network to be around a ratio of 4:1, which means a customer who has a download speed of 25Mbps per second would receive an upload speed of around 6Mbps.

In the lab, VDSL2 Vectoring delivers promising results, with speeds as high as 100Mbps on the download side. DSL advocates are excited about plans to boost those speeds much higher, as much as 1,000Mbps, using G.Fast technology now under development and expected in 2015. VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast both require operators to minimize copper line lengths for best results. Unfortunately, dilapidated copper networks won’t work well regardless of the line length, and with many telephone companies cutting back upkeep budgets for the dwindling number of customers still using landlines, an estimated 15-45 percent of all line pairs are now in some state of disrepair.

Assuming lab-like conditions, G.Fast can deliver 500Mbps over copper lines less than 100 meters long and 200Mbps over lines between 100 and 200 meters in length.

G.Fast also allows for closer symmetrical speeds, so upload rates can come close or match download speeds.

This cabinet houses the connection between a fiber optic cable and copper phone wiring.

Providers prefer the copper-fiber approach primarily for cost reasons. There are estimates deploying a G.Fast-capable VDSL service to a home would cost around 70 percent less than fiber to the home service. Workers would not need to enter customer homes either, offering less-costly self-install options.

Telekom Austria and Swisscom are among providers committed to launching the technology. Both countries are mountainous and have many rural areas to serve. Fiber rich providers are also looking at the technology for rural customers too costly or too remote to service with fiber.

Critics question the real world performance of both VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast on compromised copper landline networks. Decades of repairs, deteriorating insulation, corroded wires, water ingress, and RF interference can all conspire to deliver a fraction of promised speeds.

Many critics also point to the required aggressive deployment of fiber/VDSL cabinets — unsightly and occasionally loud “lawn refrigerators” that sit either in the right of way in front of homes or hang from nearby utility poles. To get the fastest possible speeds, one cabinet may be needed for every four or five homes, depending on lot size. Australia’s VDSL network, without Vectoring or G.Fast requires at least 70,000 cabinets, each powered by the electric grid and temporary backup batteries that keep services running for 1-2 hours in the event of a power failure. The batteries need to be decommissioned periodically and, in some instances, have caused explosions.

The costs of electric consumption, backup batteries, infrastructure, and maintenance of copper lines must be a part of the cost equation before dismissing fiber to the home as too expensive.

AT&T U-verse customers hoping for speeds faster than 24Mbps may have significant hurdles to overcome to qualify for a speed boost up to 45Mbps.

AT&T realized they were at a disadvantage in the broadband speed race as their biggest competitors — cable operators — began transitioning to DOCSIS 3 technology and launched speed upgrades to 100Mbps or more for broadband customers seeking a faster online experience. In November 2012, AT&T announced Project VIP — an investment plan to expand and enhance AT&T’s U-verse service to approximately 57 million customer locations by the end of 2015. AT&T claims it has already upgraded 1.8 million U-verse broadband customer locations, including 500,000 U-verse video locations. As part of the upgrade, AT&T promises up to 100Mbps speeds in the future.

But customers are finding just getting 45Mbps more difficult than they first imagined. A report published by Broadband Reports explains why.

The new 45/6Mbps ‘Power Tier’ requires VDSL2 pair bonding, a technology used to increase the available bandwidth to a customer’s premise. Customers who can now purchase the Max Turbo (24Mbps) tier are the most likely to get manually qualified for 45Mbps service. It’s pot luck for almost everyone else.

Among those not qualifying are most customers in apartments, duplexes, townhouses, those served with ADSL2+ or xPON connections, or through network extenders like DSLAMs. AT&T’s website may offer availability information that suggests faster service might be available, until a technician arrives to explain it is not because the line length or copper quality between your home and AT&T disqualifies you.

With AT&T still dependent on its aging copper wire facilities, service variability will remain a fact of life and until fiber replaces more copper. AT&T customers should expect many of the company’s U-verse speed claims to be possible, not probable.

The mouthpiece of Big Telecom.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has looked and looked, and just does not see America’s broadband problems aptly described by industry critics including Susan Crawford, David Cay Johnston and Tim Wu. As far as the ITIF is concerned Americans have little to complain about with respect to broadband availability, speeds or pricing.

That finding is part of a new research paper, “The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand,” authored by Richard Bennett, Luke Stewart, and Robert Atkinson.

The report sniffs at critics complaining about uncompetitive, high-priced service, dismissing them as misguided “holders of a particular ideology or economic doctrine, which is Neo-Keynesian, populist economic thinking in this instance.”

Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson, who have all penned pro-industry reports for years, prove another economic doctrine: the free market for industry bought-and-paid-for-“research” is alive and well.

The summary finding of the report:

Taking the whole picture into account, this report finds that the United States has made rapid progress in broadband deployment, performance, and price, as well as adoption when measured as computer-owning households who subscribe to broadband. Considering the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation, the prices Americans pay for broadband services are reasonable and the performance of our networks is better than in all but a handful of nations that have densely populated urban areas and have used government subsidies to leap-frog several generations of technology ahead of where the market would go on its own in response to changing consumer demands.

Although the report is extensively footnoted to bestow credibility, once a reader begins to check out those footnotes, trouble looms:

1. Some footnotes lead the reader to business or Wall Street media reports, which can favor an industry point of view or extensively quote from executives and insiders;
2. Several certain critical assertions include footnotes that link only to the home page of the source, making it impossible to find the exact source material used;
3. Many footnotes come from earlier articles, position papers, and statements from the authors or others affiliated with the ITIF — hardly independent sources of information.

Bought and paid for research.

ITIF’s report is riddled with customized benchmarks the ITIF appears to have invented itself. Ars Technica caught one in the executive summary and questioned the relevance of measuring broadband adoption among “computer-owning households” at a time when an increasing number of Americans use broadband for video streaming on televisions, use smartphones, or rely on tablets for access.

We also noted the authors making several assertions without facts in evidence to support them. Among them is the unsupported notion that “the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation” makes today’s broadband pricing understandable and fair.

In fact, the most significant costs borne by cable operators came during the early years of their initial construction — one, even two decades before broadband over cable was envisioned. When cable Internet service was introduced, it was praised for its relatively inexpensive start-up costs and its ability to deliver ancillary, unregulated revenue for cable operators. Those cable networks over which broadband is delivered have been paid off for years.

The authors avoid the actual financial reports of the largest phone and cable companies in their study, because as public shareholder-owned companies, they are obligated to disclose reality. Those financial reports show a consistent drop in capital expenses and infrastructure investment and a major increase in revenue and profits from broadband service. Cable industry executives have repeatedly asserted the reason they raise broadband prices is not because the costs to run their networks are very high, but rather because “they can.”

From there, Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson play endless rounds of Statistics Scrabble.

Claim: America enjoys robust competition for broadband.

Phone Company

Fact: The cable industry has declared itself the victor for delivering high-speed broadband in the United States. DSL has long since given up competing on speed, and even AT&T’s hybrid fiber-copper U-verse platform is rapidly losing ground in the broadband speed race. Wireless and satellite plans are almost all slower and routinely cap usage, often to levels of just a few gigabytes per month.

The cable industry also won the right to keep its network to itself, not allowing third-party wholesalers on-demand access to resell broadband over those networks. Phone companies have been able to charge discriminatory wholesale pricing to access their networks, and only for certain types of connections.

Abroad, most networks are open to third parties on non-discriminatory terms. In places like the United Kingdom, customers have their choice of ISPs available over a traditional BT DSL line. In Asia, public subsidies and incentives helped push providers to construct fiber to the premises networks, but those networks are open access, helping spur competition and lower prices.

Domestically Time Warner Cable permits competitors like Earthlink on its network on a voluntary basis, but unsurprisingly Earthlink charges the same or higher prices for service that Time Warner charges once a six month promotion ends. That represents “competition” in name-only.

Claim: Most speed-test-based research rankings on broadband speeds around the world are wrong.

Cable Company

Fact: ITIF at one point makes the unfounded assertion that since many people only test their broadband speed when something seems wrong with their connection, most speed-test-sourced “actual speed” data is not very useful because there often is something wrong with a broadband connection when testing it, resulting in flawed data. This ‘picked out of the sky’ claim is one of the primary arguments ITIF makes about why broadband rankings (produced by those other than themselves) are irrelevant.

ITIF’s press release about its report makes the completely unsubstantiated assertion that “the average network rate of all broadband connections in the United States was 29.6Mbps in the third quarter of 2012; in the same period, we ranked seventh in the world and sixth in the OECD in the percentage of users with performance faster than 10Mbps.”

DSL customers may find a statistic rating America’s broadband speeds as better than one might expect to be less than useful when it only counts broadband connections faster than the average DSL user can buy themselves.

This cherry-picking may help the ITIF’s arguments look more credible, but it does nothing to improve your broadband speeds at home or at work.

Claim: Broadband provider profits average less than 2% annually.

Fact: Another clever statistic (poorly sourced as ‘from the home page of Bloomberg.com’ — check back with us when you find the original article yourself) that fails to tell the whole story.

We aren’t THAT profitable, really.

First, ITIF defines net profits specifically as “simply the difference between revenue and expenses.” But that definition may not account for a range of corporate accounting activities which can diminish net profits but still let the company walk away with high fives from Wall Street. Share buybacks or dividend payouts, acquisitions, costs and expenses from other divisions not related to broadband, etc., can all affect the bottom line and mask the enormous earnings and profit potential of American broadband.

Take Time Warner Cable, which has a 95 percent gross margin selling broadband. Broadband service is just one of three primary services sold by the cable operator. Broadband does not suffer from landline losses in the phone business or from escalating TV programming expenses. Broadband is clearly the most profitable service in Time Warner’s product arsenal because it occupies only a small part of the company’s wired infrastructure. Supplying broadband service also costs Time Warner relatively little money as a percentage of their earnings and has helped offset revenue loss from the television side of the business. Bandwidth costs have also declined year after year. Infrastructure upgrades are more than covered by pricing that has begun to creep up over the last few years. In effect, broadband earnings are covering for other products that are not selling as well.

ITIF’s claim that supplying broadband is costly and that current rates are justified just isn’t true.

Claim: Europe is behind the United States in broadband.

Fact: The one legacy network that both Europeans and Americans share in common is the copper wire basic telephone service. From there, telecommunications service diverged.

North Americans embraced cable television while much of western Europe (especially the UK) preferred direct-to-home satellite service. That difference set the stage for some significant broadband disparity. Cable broadband technology has proved more robust and reliable than DSL service. Phone companies that rely on basic DSL are falling behind in broadband speeds. Investment to bring fiber online is the only way these phone companies can stay competitive with cable broadband. Some countries with particularly decrepit telephone networks, especially those left over from the Communist era in eastern Europe, are being scrapped in favor of fiber to the home service. Many western European countries are incrementally introducing fiber to the cabinet or neighborhood service, which leaves the last mile copper phone wire connection in place.

This is why speeds in many eastern European countries and the Baltic states with full fiber networks are so high. Advanced forms of DSL are more common further west, using technologies like VDSL2+. But DOCSIS 3 cable upgrades (and those to follow) continue to leapfrog over telephone company DSL advancements. Speed disparity is often the result of fewer cable systems in Europe as well as the amount of fiber optics replacing basic telephone service infrastructure.

Despite that, many Europeans pay less, particularly for faster service, than we do. Plus, fiber optic upgrades are within the foreseeable future in many European countries. In the United States, fiber deployments are now crawling or stalled in areas served by AT&T and Verizon. Neither company shows much interest in spending money on further wired upgrades and no competitive pressure is forcing them to, especially as both phone companies increasingly turn attention to their wireless divisions for most of their earnings.

The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.

Despite making revenue growth the top priority at Frontier Communications, the company still managed to lose 3% in year over year revenue as another 51,800 customers pulled the plug on their Frontier landline and slow DSL service.

Frontier’s latest quarterly earnings showed a net income rise to $67 million, a major improvement over $20.4 million earned during the same quarter last year. The earnings improvement comes from reduced operating expenses, down 12 percent to $977.3 million and rate increases for certain Frontier markets in less-competitive areas.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors the company has been reviewing accounts obtained from Verizon Communications, scrutinizing for “unnecessary credits, adjustments, and discounts, ” and systematically eliminating them.

“We’ve got a number of [ex-Verizon] customers that have been with us at a very, very, very low price point; they’ve been on promotions,” said Donald Shassian, Frontier’s chief financial officer. “They’ve been in existence for years and never got curtailed. And once we converted [those customers] onto [Frontier’s billing system], we identified those.”

Frontier’s plan for future growth is a temporary transition away from expanding broadband service into unserved areas, instead focusing on speed upgrades and service improvements where Frontier already serves.

Frontier: Speed upgrades “help dispel the myth that DSL technology cannot keep up with customer demand.” Faster speeds support IPTV as well.

Frontier has targeted investment on improving speeds and network capacity for customers currently stuck with 1-3Mbps traditional DSL service. Frontier is using its fiber-based middle mile network and more advanced forms of DSL to dramatically increase broadband speeds. According to company officials, 64% of Frontier’s exchanges are now equipped with VDSL2, with speeds up to 40Mbps. At least 73% have equipment capable of bonded ADSL2+ with speeds up to 20Mbps. The target for Frontier’s fastest speeds are commercial customers. By the end of this year, 71% of Frontier’s exchanges will support carrier Ethernet service up to 1Gbps for business accounts.

Most Frontier residential customers will see more modest speed improvements. During the third quarter, Frontier expanded its higher speed offerings with more to come:

• 20Mbps service is now for sale in 34% of its national service territory. By year end, 40% will have access and 52% by 2013;
• 12Mbps service is now available to 48% of its network footprint. By the end of the year, 51% of homes will have access and 60% in 2013;
• 6Mbps is now available to 67% of Frontier-served homes, with 74% expected by year end and 80% by 2013.

“We’re seeing 100Mbps delivery in vendor labs and that should be a reality in the next 12 months in our markets,” Wilderotter said. “This should help dispel the myth that DSL technology cannot keep up with customer demand.”

Wilderotter noted that the latest network upgrades might eventually support television service.

“We think we have the opportunity to offer an IPTV-type service in many of our markets, to many of our customers,” said Wilderotter. “In our labs, we’re doing some experimentation on the DSL platform with certain types of technologies that compress the data stream, so we could actually offer a very good video experience at 6Mbps or above. We’ll be doing some experimentation with that in 2013.”

New Products, More Simplified Pricing, Bigger Promotions

To better compete with cable, Frontier has simplified many of their broadband packages, eliminating the modem rental fee and other hidden surcharges for customers. Wilderotter noted the cable industry has recently started to “nickle and dime” customers with modem rental fees and surcharges, something Frontier has also charged customers in the past.

Frontier is now staking a position in simplified pricing.

“So when a customer gets a quote of $39.99 for broadband, it includes the modem, it includes surcharges, it includes everything,” Wilderotter explained. “So they’re not surprised when they get their bill. And we think that’s a huge value selling point for our product set.”

But simple pricing is not always lower pricing.

Increases in broadband service pricing, a hike in the Subscriber Line Charge, and other surcharges introduced for departing customers helped add to the company’s bottom line. But Frontier insists it adjusts rates only after considering the competitive environment.

“You don’t necessarily see us do price increases on broadband across the board,” explained Shassian. “We also believe that the price increases should be associated with increased value to the customer, too. So in some cases, it’s incremental speeds and capability.”

In an effort to upsell current customers, and even more importantly “win back” those who left, Frontier has introduced an aggressive new promotion that will reward subscribers with up to a $450 Apple gift card when committing to a new two-year contract. The value of the gift card ranges depending on how many services a customer chooses.

Stop the Cap! found Frontier pitching a triple play promotion in Tennessee for $87.99 a month with a $450 Apple gift card for new or returning Frontier customers. The bundle includes 6Mbps DSL, Frontier residential phone service with features and long distance service, and DISH Networks’ America’s Top 120 satellite service.

But there is fine print, including a two year service agreement with a $400 early termination fee for phone and broadband service, a DISH cancellation fee of $17.50 for each month remaining in a two year contract, at least $85 in “setup fees,” a $9.99 “broadband processing fee” if a customer disconnects service, and an online bonus credit a customer has to remember to request within 45 days of service activation.

Other Frontier Developments This Quarter

• Frontier began deploying the FCC Connect America Fund proceeds during the quarter to bring broadband to 92,877 new Frontier homes;
• A wireless partnership trial with AT&T began on October 8 in Washington and Minnesota. The discounted package bundle is only available to customers who also maintain Frontier broadband service;
• Over 203,000 Frontier customers signed up with legacy partner DirecTV saw their satellite service unbundled from their Frontier bills this quarter. Frontier chose DISH Networks as its satellite partner back in 2011, and the company has encouraged its old DirecTV customers to consider switching to DISH;
• Business customers constitute 52% of Frontier customer revenues. Frontier expects more than 66% of total customer revenue to come from broadband service;
• Frontier’s Simply Broadband, a broadband-only product, used to include a free landline. Not anymore;
• Frontier will begin accelerating promotions for its Apple Store gift card starting this week;
• Hughes Net Satellite service was integrated into Frontier’s systems and is pitched to customers as Frontier Satellite Broadband. It will be targeted to 750,000 households that cannot access wired broadband service from Frontier.