Frontier, Amid Bankruptcy, Is Suspected of Lying About Broadband Expansion (arstechnica.com) 19
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Small Internet providers have asked for a government investigation into Frontier Communications' claim that it recently deployed broadband to nearly 17,000 census blocks, saying the expansion seems unlikely given Frontier's bankruptcy and its historical failure to upgrade networks in rural areas. The accuracy of Frontier's claimed expansion matters to other telcos because the Federal Communications Commission is planning to distribute up to $16 billion to ISPs that commit to deploying broadband in census blocks where there isn't already home Internet service with speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. An entire census block can be ruled ineligible for the $16 billion distribution under the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) even if only one or a few homes in the block have access to 25/3Mbps broadband.
Frontier's recent FCC filing lists about 17,000 census blocks in which it has deployed 25/3Mbps broadband since June 2019 and tells the FCC that these census blocks should thus be "removed" from the list of blocks where ISPs can get funding. Frontier reported more new broadband deployments than any other provider that submitted filings in the FCC proceeding. The 17,000 blocks are home to an estimated 400,000 Americans. NTCA -- The Rural Broadband Association, which represents about 850 small ISPs, is skeptical of Frontier's reported deployment. "It may be possible that Frontier did precisely what was necessary to meet the standards for reporting significant increased deployment during this eight-month period in the face of years of historical inaction in these areas, admitted shortcomings on interim universal service buildout obligations, and increasing financial struggles," NTCA told the FCC in a filing on Wednesday. "However, such a remarkable achievement warrants validation and verification given the implications. NTCA therefore urges the commission to immediately investigate the claims of coverage made in the Frontier [filing]." The Rural Broadband Assocation went on to say that its members "serve rural areas in the same states as Frontier and, indeed, they frequently field pleas from consumers living in the latter's service area in need of access to robust broadband service. This experience -- and their decades of experience in serving sparsely populated rural areas of the nation more generally -- have caused NTCA members to question whether the filing accurately reflects conditions on the ground changing so quickly in so many places in such a short time."
Frontier's recent FCC filing lists about 17,000 census blocks in which it has deployed 25/3Mbps broadband since June 2019 and tells the FCC that these census blocks should thus be "removed" from the list of blocks where ISPs can get funding. Frontier reported more new broadband deployments than any other provider that submitted filings in the FCC proceeding. The 17,000 blocks are home to an estimated 400,000 Americans. NTCA -- The Rural Broadband Association, which represents about 850 small ISPs, is skeptical of Frontier's reported deployment. "It may be possible that Frontier did precisely what was necessary to meet the standards for reporting significant increased deployment during this eight-month period in the face of years of historical inaction in these areas, admitted shortcomings on interim universal service buildout obligations, and increasing financial struggles," NTCA told the FCC in a filing on Wednesday. "However, such a remarkable achievement warrants validation and verification given the implications. NTCA therefore urges the commission to immediately investigate the claims of coverage made in the Frontier [filing]." The Rural Broadband Assocation went on to say that its members "serve rural areas in the same states as Frontier and, indeed, they frequently field pleas from consumers living in the latter's service area in need of access to robust broadband service. This experience -- and their decades of experience in serving sparsely populated rural areas of the nation more generally -- have caused NTCA members to question whether the filing accurately reflects conditions on the ground changing so quickly in so many places in such a short time."
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Frontier LYING?! (Score:2)
Re: Frontier LYING?! (Score:2)
They were great to me!
They expanded fiber to my house because there were subscribers several blocks away. Then we ran a bunch of fiber and set the neighborhood up.
Iâ(TM)ve got 150/150 for cheaper then comcrap.
I actually believe they made expansion a priority and wrecked themselves with low prices.
I would have paid a lot more.
As someone with actual experience with Frontier... (Score:2)
To be fair they have a lot of locations with wiring not good enough to support faster DSL. In the building where I live, they have the local phone monopoly and advertise 1.5 Mbps DSL. I ordered from them to have a backup connection, and they couldn't even get that to work. The nearly fifty year-old wiring inside the building that they replaced was a disaster. To their credit, they spent thousands on new wiring and now my FAX and my backup modem both work better. Also, the wiring distance to their cent
Re: (Score:3)
The "to be fair" is irrelevant. The fact that they fixed your wiring does not excuse them from lying in order to keep the competition from getting funding. The other ISPs might be able to do a better job, and they won't displace Frontier as your phone provider or the company that can upgrade your inside wiring.
As for bad wiring, you will find that anywhere there are older homes, even in big cities or hi tech areas like Silicon Valley. The only "excuse" is with infrastructure to the homes, and even then the
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't "my" wiring. It was wiring in a condo building to their demac points on each floor. It's legally their responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don’t they just put a new pedestal with a DSLAM for the building at the street, or in the building with a fiber backhaul?
Frontier was cocky with their purchase of Verizon assets, and poorly prepared to make it work. Verizon likely acted like a used car salesman...
Re: (Score:2)
Frontier is probably not the only ISP lying about rural broadband rollouts. Telcos and cable companies have been abusing money like that for years.
They bought Verizon's fiber plant at a fire sale (Score:2, Interesting)
Frontier bought Verizon's fiber-optic FiOS plants at a fire sale. The story is that Verizon quickly realized they wouldn't make a profit on FiOS for many decades so they divested the markets with the most expensive cost per household.
Nobody should be surprised at Frontier's current situation. FTTH is prohibitively expensive outside of cities and higher-density suburbs.
It can cost up to $12,000 per home to provision FTTH. Compare this to a couple hundred for hybrid fiber coaxial cable service.
Re:They bought Verizon's fiber plant at a fire sal (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not being accused here of having bad broadband service, they're being accused of lying to the FCC in order to deny funding to their competition. Being swindled by Verizon is not a suitable excuse for lying. Going bankrupt is not an excuse for lying. No one should be forgiving them for this behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
I know a rural ISP that is able to provision new customers at a cost of about $1,100 per drop, with an average extension distance of about 300m. (Customer pays for the final drop to the house.) They trench on private land, which helps of course, and they know their market very well.
Verizon’s problem was the book value of their assets was much higher than the cost for a competitor to deploy “now.” That meant a huge write-down if they kept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of what happened with Verizon is that the technology used to create FTTH got commoditized. They installed some of the very first networks using incredibly expensive gear. And only a few years later Ubiquiti, Huaweim, Cisco, and many other got into the GPON equipment market. Now BPON equipment Verizon had on the books for 20 years depreciation needed immediate write off. A GPON OLT (gigabit) could be bought for 1/10th the cost of what they paid for BPON (100 mbit) OLT.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still expensive. I talked with some rural providers and they still say it can cost up to five figures for a FTTH drop even with the cheaper equipment. Much of the cost is the labor.
Frontier wasn't bad for dial up modems and voice (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the day, I had 2 lines coming into my house, one for voice, one for data. (Work was paying for the data line, and a nice encrypted 56K modem)
Then I got a 5Mb/s cable modem. One phone line was gone immediately.
Then I got a cell phone, the other line was gone.
They cut the cables at the street shortly after that.
A telco is lying to block its competitors? (Score:2)
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! Well, not that shocked...
So what? (Score:2)
Can we get money from the Cxx suite that lied? No, they have signed contracts saying they aren't personally liable.
Can we send some of the Cxx suite to jail for lying? No, see above.
The more things change...
Who will take over Frontier? (Score:2)
It looks like Frontier is doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like Frontier is doomed.
Maybe Verizon will buy it back at double digit firesale prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha. Like they will do anything with it back like before selling it.