# Frontier FiOS 50% Rate Increase!



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

When those of us in the Northwest and Indiana received news that Frontier was going to take over Verizon's FiOS service in our areas we were nervous but approached it with a somewhat open mind. We were told (by both companies) "Nothing will change. Same great service, same programming, same pricing."

We were instantly rewarded with copy protection (which ruined TiVo MRV), outages, glitches and a continual reduction of channel selection. Calls and letters to Frontier and our local "consumer protection agencies" fell on deaf ears. And now this...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...2013840979_big_increase_in_fios_tv_rates.html



> Frontier is raising rates for its most common TV packages by $30 per month. That's nearly a 50 percent increase for the most common package, the $65 a month plan with 220 channels. It will now cost $95.


And here's the kicker...

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/01/frontier_plans_massive_fios_ca.html



> Frontier will offer customers another, more affordable option -- DirecTV satellite service.


Are you kidding me?!

It's barely been six months. Disgusting. For those of you in Indiana...hold onto your wallets. For those of you that have Verizon FiOS, enjoy it and pray Frontier never ever comes to your neck of the woods.

I have Netflix and Hulu Plus accounts now and a new Apple TV2 that works brilliantly. I just received a Weingard antenna I ordered from Amazon that works perfectly with our TiVo's that's going to take up residence in our attic. When our "price protected" year is up with Frontier I'm done. 

Oh, and for your enjoyment, here's an earlier interview with Frontier's CEO Maggie Wilderotter just after she took the FiOS reigns. The title of the article from September 8th? "*Frontier CEO pledges better service, stable pricing*"

http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2010/09/frontier_ceo_pledges_better_se.html

For anyone wanting to voice their opinion:
*
Maggie Wilderotter, CEO and President
Frontier Communications Corporation
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT 06905-1290
Phone: 203-614-5600
[email protected]*

*Contact:
Steve Crosby
SVP, Government and Regulatory Affairs
916.206.8198
[email protected]*


----------



## Sean D. (Jan 5, 2011)

richsadams said:


> When those of us in the Northwest and Indiana received news that Frontier was going to take over Verizon's FiOS service in our areas we were nervous but approached it with a somewhat open mind. We were told (by both companies) "Nothing will change. Same great service, same programming, same pricing."
> 
> We were instantly rewarded with copy protection (which ruined TiVo MRV), outages, glitches and a continual reduction of channel selection. Calls and letters to Frontier and our local "consumer protection agencies" fell on deaf ears. And now this...
> 
> ...


That sucks. :down:

Many of the current Frontier subscribers (who didn't lock in their cable service price protection for this year)...are going to be in for a rude awakening.

When a company usually says "Nothing will change..."

That a pretty good sign that things ARE about change. (and take a turn for the worst!)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Sounds like Frontier just doesn't want to be in the FIOS TV business.

We never had FIOS in my area, bur our Verizon POTS recently became Frontier. The (ridiculous to begin with) rates have stayed the same, but I hear we can switch to another POTS company and save at least $5/mo just on bare minimum service. Maybe Frontier doesn't want to be in the POTS business either.

TiVo users are like feathers being blown around at the whim of the winds. Just count yourself lucky if you happen to be going in a direction you like. I don't see a viable long-term existence for TiVo products that we now have. Being in a niche market with no consumer clout is a losing proposition.

It will all work out in the long run since there is a huge demand for video programming when the consumer wants it, not when it's broadcast. What role TiVo will play is a good question. The only unique value they have is their software features (suggestions, search, etc.) but that edge isn't going to last forever.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

As someone on Frontier FiOS, I'm pissed off by the huge rate increase too, along w/the CP debacle. 

Once, my rate guarantee is up, unless Comcrap is equally priced or more, I'm likely going to drop FiOS and switch to Comcrap.  

DirecTV isn't an option anymore as I'm at a place w/no line of sight. It was near impossible for me to find an open apartment that met my requirements that also had line of sight to D*.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

Sorry for the ignorance, but why is Verizon selling off pieces of their FIOS business? I thought this was a key driver for their business?


----------



## eaglestvo (Dec 27, 2008)

I cut Fios cable about 6 weeks ago. We get very good OTA coverage in Northern Virginia, and we watch lots of Netflix. I was paying about $130 for Fios. Just the boxes were $36/month.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

stiffi said:


> Sorry for the ignorance, but why is Verizon selling off pieces of their FIOS business? I thought this was a key driver for their business?


I have no actual knowledge but my guess is they are going to use the money they received to up their stack in 4G wireless. I also remember reading something about most of what they sold to Frontier was in Rural Areas but can not really remember what they said about that.

Thanks,


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

It's mostly rural areas that Verizon sold to Frontier.

In some cases (like Washington) it's includes all their holdings in the state. Verizon acquired these when they bought General Telephone years ago. It's not all rural customers in Washingon, but several cities surrounding, but not including Seattle.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Verizon had already (before the Frontier deal) announced they were halting plans for future FIOS rollouts. This was concurrent with the "recession" but the exact logic isn't certain AFAIK. If it was based on a strategic decision to concentrate on internet-based services, it would make sense to me -- I think that's the way things are heading.

One thing for sure: TiVo consumers are a miniscule consideration in any video delivery strategic considerations.


----------



## jtrain (Jan 17, 2006)

I dropped FiOS in November 2009 and went OTA HD all the way on my S3 and THD (which i've since replaced with a 2nd S3; just like the look/feel better than the THD for some reason and didn't feel the need to spring for a Premier as my secondary TiVo).

I use Comcast for internet/phone and although the promotional rate has since gone away, it's been fine. I do miss the speed at times of FiOS, but its definitely not unbearable. 

There are times i want to go back to cable, but I just can't justify paying such an exorbitant amount for the "few" channels i'd like to have back (mainly ESPN, FSNW and CSNNW), let alone the time I'm saving by not plopping down and scrolling through hundreds of channels to 'find' something to watch. Thankfully we have great friends who've invited us over for the BCS game next Monday (they knowing that we don't have cable)! Also, as a parent, I found i'm reading with my kids more, and spending more 'quality' time with them in the evenings (not in front of the tv together), which to each their own on that one, but its definitely time you can't get back as they grow so quickly.

Needless to say, i was just a tad nervous when i hosted a large SB party last February and was only leaning on my homemade OTA HD antenna, but it came off without a hitch and I haven't looked back. Most of my primary recording (Season Passes, etc.) resided on the main networks anyway and it's not too hard to find cable shows, either thru Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu...let alone live sporting events on the web as well.

That's just my 0.02 cents, and it's unfortunate that Frontier has backed away from all of the 'nothing will change' talk for those users out there, i really do feel sorry for those who are getting jobbed price wise and function-wise as well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Over at DSL Reports, they are saying that Frontier doesn't have enough TV customers to make the TV business economical, so they are in a downward spiral to drop it... definitely sucks for the customers who are in that area though. Too bad they can't plug into Verizon's signals for TV and have them manage it for a revenue share off of their existing super head-ends.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

In my town, Frontier took over from Verizon, but we never had Fios, and never will because Verizon took the town over from GTE and never upgraded the local loop, leaving us unable to hook into many third party long distance providers aswell. 

Sigh, looks like the Comcast monopoly is getting stronger...


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

My advice for people with Frontier FiOS who are not under any contract...call today to re-up and get a bunch of free stuff thrown in while keeping the same rate or maybe up $5.00 a month. I got HBO/Cinemax free for 12 months, and internet up from 20/5 to 25/25. I'll take that over a $30.00 increase where NOTHING is being improved upon.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Seems like even the folks under a price protection contract wouldn't have any problems convincing Frontier to "allow" them to buy into a new one or two year contract at what would almost certainly be a higher rate..._if_ they wanted to stay with Frontier. In the long run it would pencil out beneficially for both parties, particularly those whose contracts will run out sometime this year. Sometimes it's better to deal with the devil you know I suppose.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

So is this a trend people think will continue? Verizon trying to divest itself of FIOS all around the country? Or is it just something about these select markets?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

stiffi said:


> So is this a trend people think will continue? Verizon trying to divest itself of FIOS all around the country? Or is it just something about these select markets?


Beats me. Here are some press releases about the spinoff:
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/verizon-completes-spinoff-of.html
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/fcc-approves-verizons.html
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2009/verizon-to-divest-wireline.html

Maybe do some digging the above site for Frontier.

To semi-answer one of your earlier questions, there seemed to be buzz awhile ago about Verizon suspending FiOS deployments. I don't follow it since I don't care.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

stiffi said:


> So is this a trend people think will continue? Verizon trying to divest itself of FIOS all around the country? Or is it just something about these select markets?


It was a huge series of rural markets, only a few had FIOS in them. The reality is that Frontier is too small to have a scale of economy in running a cable company, so the prices are going to shoot up, they'll lose customers, and that side of the FIOS business is going to fold. That being said, they are committed to FIOS, which means FIOS at least for internet, and probably for phone.

Verizon is going to keep moving forward with FIOS in it's own markets, although how they solve their current bandwidth crunch and if that solution is compatible with TiVo remains to be seen.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

stiffi said:


> So is this a trend people think will continue? Verizon trying to divest itself of FIOS all around the country? Or is it just something about these select markets?


My guess would be that it comes down to how expensive and non-cost-efficient it is to deploy and maintain fiber equipment in sparse areas. Palming the problem off to another company isn't going the problem go away. It would only be worse for a smaller company.

Frontier would be looking at it as getting a captive-customer list which they're looking to sell into DirecTV subscribers.


----------



## plazman30 (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It was a huge series of rural markets, only a few had FIOS in them. The reality is that Frontier is too small to have a scale of economy in running a cable company, so the prices are going to shoot up, they'll lose customers, and that side of the FIOS business is going to fold. That being said, they are committed to FIOS, which means FIOS at least for internet, and probably for phone.
> 
> Verizon is going to keep moving forward with FIOS in it's own markets, although how they solve their current bandwidth crunch and if that solution is compatible with TiVo remains to be seen.


There is a bandwidth crunch on FIOS? They keep UPPING my speed. I can download a movie from iTunes at 3.6MB/sec sustained throughout the whole download


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

richsadams said:


> Seems like even the folks under a price protection contract wouldn't have any problems convincing Frontier to "allow" them to buy into a new one or two year contract at what would almost certainly be a higher rate..._if_ they wanted to stay with Frontier. In the long run it would pencil out beneficially for both parties, particularly those whose contracts will run out sometime this year. Sometimes it's better to deal with the devil you know I suppose.


Yep, they're trying their hardest to get people to re-up before Feb 18th (or whatever the switchover date is). My guess is they shut down the video part of FiOS by 2012 if not the end of this year when they're legally allowed to do so.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

stiffi said:


> So is this a trend people think will continue? Verizon trying to divest itself of FIOS all around the country? Or is it just something about these select markets?


Verizon decided to not continue with build outs in rural areas and concentrate in high density, high value areas.

They then sold the Fios/fiber to smaller companies like Frontier. At the same time, they used an accounting procedure call "reverse morris" to attach a lot of the huge debt associated with Fios to just those portions that were sold.

The debt burden might be one reason Frontier is raising rates.

The speculation is that Verizon will now go back into those areas with LTE and undercut the small providers wiping out the competition along with that portion of the debt completely while maintaining the future revenue in rural areas with a cheaper (all wireless) infrastructure.

That last part is just speculation. The first part in not.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

plazman30 said:


> There is a bandwidth crunch on FIOS?


He means, on the TV side. "Bandwidth" isn't exactly right, either, although it's part of it. The issue is channel slots -- they're all filled up. They could solve this by extending the actual bandwidth, but that wouldn't be compatible with all (any?) of their equipment, so they'd have to replace it ($$$). This approach might not be compatible with TiVos, either. (?) Or they could do what cable companies do, and recompress their digital channels to fit more of them into the existing slots; but that would reduce picture quality. They could adopt switched digital video, or they could switch to MPEG-4, but both of these also mean more equipment to replace.

Instead, what they want to do is move some channels to IPTV. This is how they deliver VOD today, so it's compatible with their existing equipment, except for the DCT-700 "digital adapter"... and CableCards.

Of course, the TiVo is perfectly capable of handling IPTV, but they'll need either cooperation from Verizon, or else open standards (like Allvid).


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

I think we will see...in Oregon anyway...the same thing that happened when we were all mad at the Copy Flags. Remember them? Sure glad that we got that resolved! Both media and our regulatory group looked into it and the bottom line was that Frontier can do about whatever they wanted. So if that was/is the case what are organizations like MACC (in our area of Washington County) doing or approving?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> He means, on the TV side. "Bandwidth" isn't exactly right, either, although it's part of it. The issue is channel slots -- they're all filled up. They could solve this by extending the actual bandwidth, but that wouldn't be compatible with all (any?) of their equipment, so they'd have to replace it ($$$). This approach might not be compatible with TiVos, either. (?) Or they could do what cable companies do, and recompress their digital channels to fit more of them into the existing slots; but that would reduce picture quality. They could adopt switched digital video, or they could switch to MPEG-4, but both of these also mean more equipment to replace.
> 
> Instead, what they want to do is move some channels to IPTV. This is how they deliver VOD today, so it's compatible with their existing equipment, except for the DCT-700 "digital adapter"... and CableCards.
> 
> Of course, the TiVo is perfectly capable of handling IPTV, but they'll need either cooperation from Verizon, or else open standards (like Allvid).


Yup, well said. I don't know why they don't go SDV, since a few 32-home fiber cables coming in are like a node on the cable company side.

Won't they are be required to support TiVo and MCE because of the cablecard rules, or would the IPTV part of it become exempt? Even then, its unlikely anything that anyone wants to watch will be on the IPTV part, since they aren't going to get rid of the QAM anytime soon, and, if anything, they'll move a huge block of obscure SD channels over to IPTV which will open up a couple of carriers for any missing HD's.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Most of the country doesn't have a choice of 4 video providers: DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, and Frontier. Since satellite is very dependent on site location, Comcast will the be the big winner in this.

Perhaps the "triple play" types of deals will still be cost effective. I didn't see anything on that rate chart about those. But I'll switch back to Comcast before paying 50% more for service.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Most of the country doesn't have a choice of 4 video providers: DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, and Frontier. Since satellite is very dependent on site location, Comcast will the be the big winner in this.
> 
> Perhaps the "triple play" types of deals will still be cost effective. I didn't see anything on that rate chart about those. But I'll switch back to Comcast before paying 50% more for service.


But, I think Comcast does byte counting. So I thought of switching back to them just for TV, but then we would loose the bundle discount and may end up paying the same. Perhaps the thing to do is see what Frontier will do for a 2 year contract and then if they pull TV service we can then check with someone else. I am good 'til 10/2011 so not sure what they would offer!

One other thought...does Comcast have as many non zero CCI bytes as Frontier? I thought that I saw things like Discovery, etc were still at 0x00 on Comcast.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Most of the country doesn't have a choice of 4 video providers: DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, and Frontier. Since satellite is very dependent on site location, Comcast will the be the big winner in this.
> 
> Perhaps the "triple play" types of deals will still be cost effective. I didn't see anything on that rate chart about those. But I'll switch back to Comcast before paying 50% more for service.


Satellite is the only pretty much universal service across the country. No one else can get you the full 19mbps HD streams, even with cost increases. I understand Verizon was a lot better than Frontier, but I'm jealous of Frontier compared to the options we have here.

As for bandwidth caps, Comcast is 250GB, so plenty even for the bandwidth hog, and if you don't do stupid things like leave streams of nothing up for hours on end or download stuff you're never going to watch, you won't have any issue with it.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Satellite is the only pretty much universal service across the country. No one else can get you the full 19mbps HD streams, even with cost increases. I understand Verizon was a lot better than Frontier, but I'm jealous of Frontier compared to the options we have here.
> 
> As for bandwidth caps, Comcast is 250GB, so plenty even for the bandwidth hog, and if you don't do stupid things like leave streams of nothing up for hours on end or download stuff you're never going to watch, you won't have any issue with it.


One way around it is Comcast TV only...Frontier for phone/Internet. However I would loose bundle discounts. Streaming Netflix would count. Not sure how many bytes a Netflix Movie is.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Bigg said:


> for bandwidth caps, Comcast is 250GB, so plenty even for the bandwidth hog, and if you don't do stupid things like leave streams of nothing up for hours on end or download stuff you're never going to watch, you won't have any issue with it.


That makes me even more nervous because Frontier had publicly discussed bandwidth caps a little while back...and they were considering 100GB "reasonable".



> "I don't know what that limit will be," he said. "The one thing I do know is we don't want to impact our customers."


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

richsadams said:


> That makes me even more nervous because Frontier had publicly discussed bandwidth caps a little while back...and they were considering 100GB "reasonable".


Rich wasn't that for Frontier DSL...not FIOS?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MPSAN said:


> One way around it is Comcast TV only...Frontier for phone/Internet. However I would loose bundle discounts. Streaming Netflix would count. Not sure how many bytes a Netflix Movie is.


Netflix isn't that much... maybe 1GB/hour, a couple gigs an hour for HD... yeah it can add up, but it's not going to blow you over the 250GB limit.

The point of Frontier TV is that it's the full 19mbps. Comcast is about 12mbps (three HD's per carrier).


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I recently got into a "disagreement" where they said they only turn on copy protection on channels that request it.

Really? EVERY channel except for locals request it?

I love to hear stories like this where Verizon has no copy protection but then another company comes along and then turns it on. I guess all those broadcasters just forgot to ask Verizon, huh?

I tried to explain to TW how silly their explanation was (even QVC and CSPAN requested CP?) but it fell on deaf ears, of course.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

MPSAN said:


> But, I think Comcast does byte counting. So I thought of switching back to them just for TV, but then we would loose the bundle discount and may end up paying the same. Perhaps the thing to do is see what Frontier will do for a 2 year contract and then if they pull TV service we can then check with someone else. I am good 'til 10/2011 so not sure what they would offer!
> 
> One other thought...does Comcast have as many non zero CCI bytes as Frontier? I thought that I saw things like Discovery, etc were still at 0x00 on Comcast.


MPSAN, call up Frontier and re-up with them with a new bundle. You'll most likely get faster internet (if you don't have it already at 25/25) as well as free HBO/Cinemax or the movie package for 12 months. Add that to a modest $5.00 increase with credits being applied makes it work out for me until next year. We'll see if Frontier pulls their head out of their collective behinds by then, I doubt it.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

MPSAN said:


> ...One other thought...does Comcast have as many non zero CCI bytes as Frontier? I thought that I saw things like Discovery, etc were still at 0x00 on Comcast.


It may vary by region, but pretty much any non-premium channel is open. I can copy from such as HDNET, IFCHD and Hallmark, etc but not HBO, Showtime and their subchannels. Some like MGM and TCM are also blocked.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Thanks all. I hope I can keep Frontier. Also, the web page shows a 24 month price of $104.99 (Extreme HD) with 25/25 Internet Speed. I get 25/15 now but speed check shows it as 25/25 anyway. I will call them tomorrow and see if I can get that with HBO/Cinemax. Funny...sometimes if you do not get what you want you can hang up and call back in a few minutes! 

OH...if I do have to go to Comcast, and I do not want to, they should have The Game Show network clear!  Frontier must stop this Piracy of shows like Match Game 1965!


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

MPSAN said:


> Rich wasn't that for Frontier DSL...not FIOS?


Although the initial part of the article was about DSL in Minnesota I guess the story's author (and I) got the inference from the Frontier rep that they would consider a cap on any broadband Frontier might have...



> But 100 gigs is a considerably lower threshold, particularly if you're downloading material over the hyper-fast FiOS network that Frontier is buying from Verizon.


Hard to say, but based on some very odd bandwidth activity I've seen since Frontier took over I'm guessing they're trying a few "ideas" like throttling downloads so it wouldn't surprise me if bandwidth caps weren't in their sights.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

cwoody222 said:


> I recently got into a "disagreement" where they said they only turn on copy protection on channels that request it.
> 
> Really? EVERY channel except for locals request it?
> 
> ...


Oh no.... dear god!

We thru all this crap when all of the sudden we discovered copy protection after an apparent outage was "resolved" a month before we got transitioned from VZ to Frontier. The thread is at http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=450307. The VZ FiOSTV Twitter guy was worthless too.

We brought up the holes in CP they had like NGC and NGCHD were in the clear while standard def CNN Headline News and Game Show Network needed "protection"? I brought up HDNet and Current TV. Really? They're asking for CP? It was all wasted effort.

Well after did get moved to Frontier, I tried calling Frontier and posted my results at http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8249548#post8249548. It was a waste of time.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

I believe the problem is that Verizon (FiOS) and AT&T Uverse are paying, by far, the most for its programming than any of the other providers, and this is due to the low number of subscribers to those two services (lack of critical mass). The channels have FiOS and Uverse right where they want them: desperate to add subscribers and compete.

Verizon has the deep pockets to keep the rates from becoming worse than they are (subsidizing and scales), but Frontier being much smaller would probably go out of business if it didn't raise rates reflect much closer the true cost of all those channels.

Meanwhile, the big Cable Cos. DirecTV and Dish have the critical mass to dump a channel only to have Lifetime, VS. and a few others who wanted "outrageous" price increases to come crawling back, and at a rate favorable to the MVPD's. Dish actually got a rate lower than DirecTV's and DirectTV sued Lifetime Networks for violation DirecTV's "most favored nation" clause that guaranteed DirecTV the best rate. He, he. This MVPD business is bizarre.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

richsadams said:


> Although the initial part of the article was about DSL in Minnesota I guess the story's author (and I) got the inference from the Frontier rep that they would consider a cap on any broadband Frontier might have...
> 
> Hard to say, but based on some very odd bandwidth activity I've seen since Frontier took over I'm guessing they're trying a few "ideas" like throttling downloads so it wouldn't surprise me if bandwidth caps weren't in their sights.


That 100GB limit is actually pretty high for them. I'm pretty sure I remember that they were testing a 5GB limit  in a town in upstate NY a couple of years ago.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> I believe the problem is that Verizon (FiOS) and AT&T Uverse are paying, by far, the most for its programming than any of the other providers, and this is due to the low number of subscribers to those two services (lack of critical mass). The channels have FiOS and Uverse right where they want them: desperate to add subscribers and compete.
> 
> Verizon has the deep pockets to keep the rates from becoming worse than they are (subsidizing and scales), but Frontier being much smaller would probably go out of business if it didn't raise rates reflect much closer the true cost of all those channels.
> 
> Meanwhile, the big Cable Cos. DirecTV and Dish have the critical mass to dump a channel only to have Lifetime, VS. and a few others who wanted "outrageous" price increases to come crawling back, and at a rate favorable to the MVPD's. Dish actually got a rate lower than DirecTV's and DirectTV sued Lifetime Networks for violation DirecTV's "most favored nation" clause that guaranteed DirecTV the best rate. He, he. This MVPD business is bizarre.


Charlie Ergen over at DISH is a hard negotiator, and is incredibly aggressive. He basically doesn't put up with crap from the channels trying to rip him off, and just makes them go dark on his 13+ million subscribers. Because Steinbrenner tried to rip him off, and wouldn't lower the per-sub rate, DISH never got YES network (not sure if that will change after Steinbrenner's death).

It's true though, that you need a critical mass of subscribers to make the channels want to be carried on your system.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

dylanemcgregor said:


> That 100GB limit is actually pretty high for them. I'm pretty sure I remember that they were testing a 5GB limit  in a town in upstate NY a couple of years ago.


According to the article 5GB is actually their stated broadband cap, but they don't enforce it. That goes to show how far they've come updating their business model since their DSL heyday.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Charlie Ergen over at DISH is a hard negotiator, and is incredibly aggressive. He basically doesn't put up with crap from the channels trying to rip him off, and just makes them go dark on his 13+ million subscribers. Because Steinbrenner tried to rip him off, and wouldn't lower the per-sub rate, DISH never got YES network (not sure if that will change after Steinbrenner's death).
> 
> It's true though, that you need a critical mass of subscribers to make the channels want to be carried on your system.


True, although Charlie gets the most press and is believed to be by many the toughest negotiator, it is really Comcast CEO *Tom Roberts* who makes Charlie look like a pussycat. Mr. Roberts holds the throne with NO ONE, and I mean not even Rupert Murdoch or even the new mean man at DirecTV, Michael White (who has stated a new aggressive attitude about programming costs being DirecTV's biggest problem--Charlie said this over 10 years ago regarding the whole industry). as a serious contender. Ergan gets the press as being tough and "scrappy" because Dish is, by far, the smallest among the giants of much deeper pocketed competition. But, yes, Charlie showed the big guys that you can drop a channel and suffer NO ill affects. Of course, a channel like ESPN would be a disaster, but everyone is paying HUGE fees for that one anyway.

For Ergan, it is all about the spreadsheet. The numbers have to make sense because he will not spend if he can't get the return and this is how Dish, being small, is very healthy financially. Charlie won't practice foolish economics just because someone thinks they have to have MLB or NFLST. He's done just fine without them and he consults the numbers to find his way, not some sense that Dish "must" have some premium channel just to _seem_ competitive and add luster to a brand that will lead to bankrupting the company. And many companies do spend according to some sort of "cache" wile ignoring the spreadsheet that shows going out of business a certainty because of the "cache."

Please research the tactics used by Mr. Roberts during his fight with the NFL and its then new channel and, of course, his current attempt to merge Comcast with NBC/Universal, and you find a most "interesting" person. Senator Al Franken, at a public Senate hearing on live TV, pretty much accused Mr. Roberts of lying to him during a meeting in Franken's office and displayed the embarrassing evidence. Dramatic of Franken? Yes. But just the tip of the Rogers iceberg. In other words, all these guys are tough negotiators.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

That's very intersting, but in Comcast's case, the consumer doesn't really care, since Comcast doesn't pass those savings onto the consumer, whereas DISH does. DISH is undercutting DirecTV and Comcast by quite a bit, whereas DirecTV and Comcast are almost identical in pricing for the base plan, obviously additional services and boxes will change the pricing comparison a bit.

Also, Comcast has done some really slimy stuff on the consumer aside (other than being Comcast of course), like limiting access in Philly to CSN for satellite subscribers, which wasn't fixed until legal action was taken against them. DISH, on the other hand, has been pretty consumer friendly, at least as much as a big satellite company can be.


----------



## KillTheGrimace (Nov 17, 2003)

Wow, I really thought I had achieved something when I shaved $40/month off our cable/internet/voip bills a couple months ago by switching VOIP services and getting a double-play with FIOS TV/Internet. We actually _dropped _Comcast to get FIOS TV, and now this?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

KillTheGrimace said:


> Wow, I really thought I had achieved something when I shaved $40/month off our cable/internet/voip bills a couple months ago by switching VOIP services and getting a double-play with FIOS TV/Internet. We actually _dropped _Comcast to get FIOS TV, and now this?


Do you have a price guarantee? If so, at least you'll save until that expires and have to figure out the next step...


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

I'd follow FIOS deployments if FIOS was ever going to come to where I live. Since Verizon has as much as admitted that FIOS will never be deployed in any major city where it isn't already deployed (they will not compete with Comcast, Charter, etc), FIOS is dead to me.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

tivogurl said:


> I'd follow FIOS deployments if FIOS was ever going to come to where I live. Since Verizon has as much as admitted that FIOS will never be deployed in any major city where it isn't already deployed (they will not compete with Comcast, Charter, etc), FIOS is dead to me.


I don't think it has anything to do with them not competing. They compete with Time Warner here.

They've discontinued deployment since it's very costly. They're focusing on the areas they have installed already. Whether it be city or suburb.

City (downtown areas) deployments are harder also. Usually the city means older infrastructure, more bureaucracy, difficulties of multi-unit dwellings, more concrete to dig up (opposed to lawns), etc.

And at least in my city it also means a less wealthy population which is less likely to see the appeal of a "premium" service like FiOS (even if it's cheaper).

FiOS is all over my area but only in select suburbs that they thought they could get the most bang for their buck with and where they could negotiate with the town government to allow them in. Some wouldn't due to their agreements with Time Warner.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

cwoody222 said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with them not competing. They compete with Time Warner here.


Was your city one Verizon inherited in the GTE merger? So far as I know, Verizon only puts FIOS in areas where they already had existing cable. The have not and will not wire up, for example, Houston or Miami, even though they would otherwise be suitable (being large metro areas with millions of people), because those are Comcast markets. Compare Miami to Tampa, where FIOS _is_ being built out, even though they're competing with Bright House, because Tampa was a former GTE market and Miami wasn't.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

We were a Bell Atlantic market prior to Verizon. Not sure what that means but yes Verizon had services here long before FiOS.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

cwoody222 said:


> We were a Bell Atlantic market prior to Verizon. Not sure what that means but yes Verizon had services here long before FiOS.


Exactly my point. Verizon was a merger between Bell Atlantic and GTE. Since Verizon was already in your area, Verizon was happy to upgrade to FIOS and compete with whoever else was there. What Verizon won't do is deploy from scratch in a (for example) Comcast area, that's why major metro areas you'd think would be candidates for FIOS aren't.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> Since Verizon was already in your area, Verizon was happy to upgrade to FIOS and compete with whoever else was there. What Verizon won't do is deploy from scratch in a (for example) Comcast area, that's why major metro areas you'd think would be candidates for FIOS aren't.


Stated another way, I think you're saying that Verizon only deployed FiOS in areas where they are the ILEC, aka Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. I think that's generally true, but I don't know the business enough to think of a counterexample.

Somewhat different, IIRC someone posted info (perhaps in AVS Forum) about greenfield communities in Texas where all three of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon were fighting it out.

Competing in new development makes more sense than becoming the third provider in an area where there is already an ILEC and a cable company. I'm sure Verizon ran ROI and decided it made much more sense to change copper to fiber where they already were the ILEC than to slug it out against entrenched competitors.

Also I'm not a tax expert but I think there are many financial advantages to replacing copper with fiber. The old copper was probably on a very long depreciation schedule. Replacing it means it just became worthless, so all residual value for the copper can be immediately written off. That calculation probably helped justify the deployment of FiOS. And if you're not the ILEC, you're not replacing your own copper, so there's nothing to write off!


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

BTW, Comcast and Verizon territories do overlap, considerably. Here in Maryland, for example. The better contrast would be Verizon vs. AT&T -- they have very little overlap in their landline territories, since they both were built mostly out of the former Baby Bells. (Comcast was built from dozens of local cable TV companies.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Comcast and Verizon overlap in the Boston area which is the most FIOS-dense area in the country. They mostly deploy it in areas where they are the ILEC, because then they can move their own customers over and pull them into the TV offering in addition to phone and internet, whereas when they, in effect, overbuild AT&T, they have to go after new customers. Of course if the general public understood the very basics of technology and MPEG-2 compression, FIOS TV and internet would have 100&#37; penetration, and Comcast would have an abandoned HFC plant in the areas that have been wired for FIOS, in addition to Verizon's own copper plant being scrapped.

EDIT: Let me make it clear that I'm glad there are dumb customers out there who don't understand the benefits of un-re-compressed HD, so that Verizon still has a competitor.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> EDIT: Let me make it clear that I'm glad there are dumb customers out there who don't understand the benefits of un-re-compressed HD, so that Verizon still has a competitor.


This thread was started to discuss the huge price increase that Frontier recently announced. So here's a thought question ...

Even if you're a "dumb customer" and "don't understand" the benefits of higher quality HD, how much more would you pay for that picture quality?

Currently, Frontier wants to charge 50% more. What if Verizon raised their rates by 50%? What if Verizon raised their rates by 100%? What if Verizon raised their rates by 500%?

At what point do you change from being a "dumb customer" to being a "smart consumer"?


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> This thread was started to discuss the huge price increase that Frontier recently announced. So here's a thought question ...
> 
> Even if you're a "dumb customer" and "don't understand" the benefits of higher quality HD, how much more would you pay for that picture quality?
> 
> ...


Those are good questions. I don't know that the transition goes from dumb to smart, but from tolerance to refusal.

Without a direct side-by-side comparison I doubt if most folks can tell the difference between the PQ coming from a decent HD signal on FiOS, a typical cableco or satellite.

A minority of folks (probably most here) value PQ and understand the how's and why's of the various offerings out there. The majority however tend to treat TV like buying most any other commodity. Once they're satisfied with what they're getting it takes quite a bit to get them to change. However if what they're getting suddenly costs 50% more than it did the day before with little or no perceptible improvement in the product overall _and_ a competitor has a equally good product (in their eyes) for less, that's a catalyst for switching. It might mean switching to something else their current provider offers...in this case DirecTV, but it could mean something else entirely...cutting the cord for instance.

The other factor in the mix is bundling. FiOS offers a "large pipe" as they say, a steady and reliable high speed broadband product that's of great value, particularly to many of us here...perhaps not as much for regular users. They also offer telephone service with no cost differences between local and long-distance service (within the U.S.). Easily getting all three services at a somewhat to heavily discounted rate is a compelling offering and it seems that's what most people have now. The providers know that separating one from the other or changing them all makes switching more difficult for "normal" folks. Raising TV rates while keeping pricing on the other services flat lowers the threshold of pain as it were.

So I think these sorts of things cause some people to become more educated about the offering and hence "smarter". However for the majority it's just another "cost increase" that they'll bear. I don't know that that makes them "dumb", perhaps just human.

For me...50% is waaaaay too much.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

I don't know what effect this will have on Frontier's plans to jack up rates 50% but I'm glad someone listened to us and is taking action!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70213825/MACC-Letter-to-Frontier-FiOS

Thanks to MPSAN for forwarding this to me! :up:


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Here in Northern New England, Verizon sold off all their landline and internet business to a small company called Fairpoint, and it almost put Fairpoint out of business. I'm not sure if Verizon ever rolled out FiOS TV in northern New England - they planned to but abandoned it even before the sellout.

The best I can say about Fairpoint is that they are so screwed up that they have no cycles available for raising rates. Heck, I tried to pay them for my Internet access for six months and they couldn't figure out how to accept it. Even today, some two years later, their billing system is messed up.


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

Wow, just wow. Who in their right mind would ever pay $24.99/month for local channels only? That's absurd. Of course, $94.99/month for the next step up in the package ladder is equally absurd. Honestly, you have nothing between the locals and a 200 channel package? And an extra $10/month (+11&#37 gets you 120 more channels (+60%)? People with only 200 are getting screwed....


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

stevel said:


> Here in Northern New England, Verizon sold off all their landline and internet business to a small company called Fairpoint, and it almost put Fairpoint out of business. I'm not sure if Verizon ever rolled out FiOS TV in northern New England - they planned to but abandoned it even before the sellout.
> 
> The best I can say about Fairpoint is that they are so screwed up that they have no cycles available for raising rates. Heck, I tried to pay them for my Internet access for six months and they couldn't figure out how to accept it. Even today, some two years later, their billing system is messed up.


I thought Fairpoint went bankrupt? Or did they do that to shake off the debt they incurred and kept on going? Their name was invoked by many people warning folks of what could happen to Frontier in our area with respect to their acquisition of the Verizon business since Fairpoint and Frontier have a lot in common (read: neophytes). It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see Frontier disappear sometime down the road. They bit off way more than they can chew IMO and now the chickens are...well that's enough of the over-used idoms for now.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

On a semi-related note, Netflix's recent ratings of the cableco's streaming capabilities was interesting...



> For January 15, the last date Netflix included in the report, the best performing ISPs were as follows:
> 1. Charter
> 2. Comcast
> 3. Time Warner
> ...


That's probably doesn't include FiOS service, but still pretty sad. Have I piled on too much now?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

The problem with the Netflix ratings is they bundle DSL and Fiber which is why Verizon is middle of the road. You have FiOS on top and then DSL on the bottom and shocking you get Verizon in the middle.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> The problem with the Netflix ratings is they bundle DSL and Fiber which is why Verizon is middle of the road. You have FiOS on top and then DSL on the bottom and shocking you get Verizon in the middle.


Boy do I wish we still had Verizon!


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Frontier's response to the MACC's earlier request for justification of a nearly 50% rate increase...

http://media.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/other/Frontier Reply to MACC 2-3-2011.pdf

So Frontier's corporate middle finger continues to get a workout. :down:

For anyone wanting to voice their opinion:
*
Maggie Wilderotter, CEO and President
Frontier Communications Corporation
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT 06905-1290
Phone: 203-614-5600
[email protected]*

*Steve Crosby
SVP, Government and Regulatory Affairs
Frontier Communications Corporation
916.206.8198
[email protected]*

(Thanks to MPSAN for keeping us apprised.)


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

richsadams said:


> Frontier's response to the MACC's earlier request for justification of a nearly 50% rate increase...
> 
> http://media.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/other/Frontier Reply to MACC 2-3-2011.pdf
> 
> So Frontier's corporate middle finger continues to get a workout. :down:


Ugh! It's not unlike VZ's response to the CP debacle that some people (not me) received. They essentially said that they're doing it, because they can.


----------



## klrobinson999 (Aug 26, 2010)

Verizon basically wanted out of the landline business in 90% of the territory that the served. With the sale to Frontier (and other regionals) went the FiOS business. Verizon decided to only stay in major urban and suburban areas, and sold off the rural and small city accounts. 

Verizon is playing it smart, since we all know landlines are a future loss product. other than industry, business, and government, who will use them in 10-20 years? There will always probably need to be landline service of some sort (since this is not Europe and America can never hope to have full cell coverage everywhere), but don't be surprised if Frontier and others go bankrupt in about a decade -- especially if they keep raising rates like this!

(note that Frontier standard landline service went from $44 to $65 in my area just last month. So much for keeping ANY prices the same or even competitive).


----------



## tivoROCKSme (Jun 24, 2003)

Frontier clearly didn't do their due diligence when they bought the Fios piece. They didn't realize they wouldn't have a head end and would be purchasing content. I'm shorting Frontier stock. I feel very sorry for Verizon Fios customers who had a rocking fiber to the prem solution and are now getting service from a company who doesn't understand what they have or what to do with the fiber network. Sad indeed.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

It is sad indeed. Plus recently some of us have started experiencing FiOS broadband speed issues. The initial tests show burst speeds that match what we're supposed to be getting (I'm on 25/25) but after a short time everything slows to a crawl and then climbs back up but never to the advertised speeds. This is causing us headaches when downloading Amazon and Netflix content. If I didn't know better I'd say Frontier is throttling download speeds. With a pipe as big as FiOS I have no idea why, but it has all of the earmarks. I've given up calling their support desk...it's frustrating when you know more than the person on the other end of the line.

We never, ever had any issues, broadband, TV or phone with Verizon. Now they think they should be able to charge more for worse service.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Yep, I can tell the speed is changing quite a bit during regular web-browsing/youtube. Trying to squeeze every nickel out of us those greedy bastards!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

klrobinson999 said:


> ...
> 
> Verizon is playing it smart, since we all know landlines are a future loss product. other than industry, business, and government, who will use them in 10-20 years? ...


Those of us in hurricane country? (and I don't mean the hockey team).

You can have my landline when you pry it from my cold dead front yard right-of-way.


----------



## turbobuick86 (May 3, 2002)

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Frontier-Delays-Controversial-50-FiOSTV-Hikes-112633


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

tivoROCKSme said:


> Frontier clearly didn't do their due diligence when they bought the Fios piece. They didn't realize they wouldn't have a head end and would be purchasing content. I'm shorting Frontier stock. I feel very sorry for Verizon Fios customers who had a rocking fiber to the prem solution and are now getting service from a company who doesn't understand what they have or what to do with the fiber network. Sad indeed.


I think you've got a lot of cahones shorting a stock with an 8% dividend yield (which you're responsible for paying). A put spread might be less costly. But we're not supposed to talk stocks here, so to keep this on thread ...

I think over the long term Frontier is insane and will go down the drain. Someone else just mentioned that their landline went from $44 to $65. Raising prices even though Vonage, Ooma, MagicJack, and countless others are competitors? It's obvious that Frontier simply wants to milk every last dollar out of existing infrastructure before the whole thing collapses in a pile of debt.

So that means you won't want to be a customer of Frontier while it declines. Service will get worse and worse. Prices will go up and up.

And, yes, there's some state of the art fiber buried right in front of my house. It has so much potential that will probably never be exploited. So sad. So very sad.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> And, yes, there's some state of the art fiber buried right in front of my house. It has so much potential that will probably never be exploited. So sad. So very sad.


Verizon could buy it back for a song after Frontier files bankruptcy.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I think you've got a lot of cahones shorting a stock with an 8% dividend yield (which you're responsible for paying). A put spread might be less costly. But we're not supposed to talk stocks here, so to keep this on thread ...
> 
> I think over the long term Frontier is insane and will go down the drain. Someone else just mentioned that their landline went from $44 to $65. Raising prices even though Vonage, Ooma, MagicJack, and countless others are competitors? It's obvious that Frontier simply wants to milk every last dollar out of existing infrastructure before the whole thing collapses in a pile of debt.
> 
> ...


8%, it won't last.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

rifleman69 said:


> 8%, it won't last.


Take the money and run while you can!


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

A house-to-house Comcast salesman came by today.

They are cleverly attacking Frontier! They are offering $250 Visa gift cards if you're under contract with Frontier. Hmmm, ... how much is the termination fee? In addition, Comcast's triple play rates are more-or-less equivalent to previous Frontier rates (pre 50% increase).


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

No one ever said Comcast was not good at marketing....

Its customer service and installations that are comcast problems.

Pretty smart move on comcast part.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Frontier took on an enormous amount of debt through a reverse Morris agreement when it bought the Fios service. They knew they were going to have to raise rates to cover the debt. The real question is why didn't the regulator know or did they.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

acvthree said:


> Frontier took on an enormous amount of debt through a reverse Morris agreement when it bought the Fios service. They knew they were going to have to raise rates to cover the debt. The real question is why didn't the regulator know or did they.


Good question...and another sign of the "go along to get along", rubber stamp style of the "regulatory" agencies that seem to have had a spinectomy of late. I'm glad the MACC is finally stepping up to the plate but it's too little too late and they probably have no teeth at this point anyway.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

After only 8 months in the business, Frontier is walking away from TV...

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/frontier_pulls_out_of_cable_tv.html

Oh, after stiff challenges by local regulators Frontier put a hold on the scheduled 50% rate increase. However for anyone unwisely considering signing up with Frontier in the meantime...installation rates were raised from $79 to...

wait for it...



Spoiler



*$500!*


 



> Ken Gaffga, Frontier's Oregon general manager, said Friday that his company hadn't understood the difficulties and costs of running a cable TV business.


Really?!

Unfreakin'believable! $8.6 _billion_ dollars and apparently not worthy of a little due diligence. What a bunch of losers. :down: :down: :down:

BTW: Continued thanks to MPSAN for keeping us informed.

UGH!


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

Today I installed Comcast because I was fed up with Frontier FiOS. I was reluctant to do this, but I have not been happy with Frontier at all. I loved it when I switched to Verizon FiOS a few years ago... but even their internet had become so bad that I couldn't even listen to streaming internet radio without frequent drop-outs. One would think that with 25/15 service, you could stream radio!!!

Now I do have a question: My Tivo boxes are still showing the cable lineup of Frontier. Do I need to do something specific to get the new channel lineup downloaded to my 3 Tivo boxes? I have 2 TiVO HDs, and 1 TiVO HD XL.

/Jim


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

flynz4 said:


> Today I installed Comcast because I was fed up with Frontier FiOS. I was reluctant to do this, but I have not been happy with Frontier at all. I loved it when I switched to Verizon FiOS a few years ago... but even their internet had become so bad that I couldn't even listen to streaming internet radio without frequent drop-outs. One would think that with 25/15 service, you could stream radio!!!
> 
> Now I do have a question: My Tivo boxes are still showing the cable lineup of Frontier. Do I need to do something specific to get the new channel lineup downloaded to my 3 Tivo boxes? I have 2 TiVO HDs, and 1 TiVO HD XL.
> 
> /Jim


Uh, re-do Guided Setup?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

richsadams said:


> After only 8 months in the business, Frontier is walking away from TV...
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/frontier_pulls_out_of_cable_tv.html


Oh, you have to love the cojones of this statement: "Frontier insisted that it hasn't given up on attracting new subscribers to its service, marketed as FiOS TV."

$500 installation fee, and they haven't given up on attracting new customers? No one, not even a congressman, is that stupid.



richsadams said:


> Really?!


I don't know. I guess. The reporter couldn't be joking, could he?



richsadams said:


> Unfreakin'believable! $8.6 _billion_ dollars and apparently not worthy of a little due diligence. What a bunch of losers. :down: :down: :down:


No kidding. Forget due diligence. How about being able to count to twenty-one without getting naked? Gaffga's statement was the bald faced equivalent of, "We are too freaking stupid to be allowed to breathe." Gawd, I hope none of those clowns have any children. They might grow up to be like their parents. This yutz sounds like the poster boy for postpartum abortions... decades postpartum. I bet this moron's lips move when he reads a stop sign.


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

unitron said:


> Uh, re-do Guided Setup?


I guess that was obvious. 

The installation guy said it would automatically load in a few hours. That was this morning. I have all 3 sets running now. Thanks.

/Jim


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

flynz4 said:


> I guess that was obvious.
> 
> The installation guy said it would automatically load in a few hours. That was this morning. I have all 3 sets running now. Thanks.
> 
> /Jim


TiVo does eventually update on its own, but glad to hear things are good...too bad it's not with FiOS anymore.


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

richsadams said:


> TiVo does eventually update on its own, but glad to hear things are good...too bad it's not with FiOS anymore.


Rich,

Comcast internet seems to be faster than FiOS. It never used to be that way... but my FiOS degraded. The actual transfer rate seemed fine, but the latency clicking from page to page seemed to degrade.

/Jim


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

flynz4 said:


> Rich,
> 
> Comcast internet seems to be faster than FiOS. It never used to be that way... but my FiOS degraded. The actual transfer rate seemed fine, but the latency clicking from page to page seemed to degrade.
> 
> /Jim


We have 25/25 FiOS broadband and it was working fine until Frontier came along. Within a couple of months all sorts of issues started showing up and I could swear they began throttling downloads about a month ago. MPSAN had the same issues. It was rock-solid with Verizon. My guess is that Frontier not only didn't understand how to run cable TV, they don't have a clue about FiOS broadband either.

About a month or two before we switched from Comcast to VZ I noticed Comcast's broadband would really scream late at night. Here's a screen shot I took at the time...










The downside was that it was never steady. During the day, particularly on weekends it would drop quite a bit, but it never became unusable. Of course with Comcast it all depends on how your neighbors are using their connections...hopefully you don't have any bit torrent fanatics nearby! I'm sure Comcast improved their systems to compete with VZ the past couple of years. Hope they don't let their guard down as Frontier slithers away.

In any case, enjoy!


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

richsadams said:


> I have Netflix and Hulu Plus accounts now and a new Apple TV2 that works brilliantly. I just received a Weingard antenna I ordered from Amazon that works perfectly with our TiVo's that's going to take up residence in our attic. When our "price protected" year is up with Frontier I'm done.


Don't have FiOS in my area but I feel your pain. I'm at the point right now where all I want is cable internet and may cancel everything else, then go OTA. What these companies need are consumers to cancel on them, then maybe they will get their heads on straight due to the lost revenue.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Comcast has a feature called PowerBoost where they will accelerate the initial part of a download. Makes them look better in speed tests.

Here in Northern New England where Verizon palmed off its services on Fairpoint, the fiber network service has been ok, though they are making no investment in that. No fiber TV for us. Fairpoint has enough problems elsewhere that they can't be bothered with throttling bandwidth.


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

My experience with Comcast is too new to offer a conclusive opinion/assessment compared to FiOS.

I suspect that the my download speed, measured in Mb/s was always faster on FiOS, irrespective if measured on Verizon or Frontier. I had 25/15 on FiOS, and later they upgraded me to 25/25... but when I cancelled yesterday they told me my speed was still 25/15. I am not sure it matters.

When I said that Comcast seems to be faster, it is because of "latency" not "bandwidth". With Comcast yesterday, the internet "felt" a lot faster, and I think it was because of a reduced delay when clicking from page to page. This is the area that I think got slower on the change from Verizon to Frontier. It seems fast again with Comcast.

I have no idea what causes this. I would guess better DNS at Comcast, but I am clueless if that is really the case.

/Jim


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

stevel said:


> Comcast has a feature called PowerBoost where they will accelerate the initial part of a download. Makes them look better in speed tests.


IIRC it was the first 10MB download. However I was able to run extended DL diagnostics and although the burst was evident they did manage very high speeds...but again, that was usually late night/early morning.



flynz4 said:


> I have no idea what causes this. I would guess better DNS at Comcast, but I am clueless if that is really the case.


That's almost certainly it...or at least a good part of it. I rarely ever use our provider's DNS though. There's a terrific little (free) program called Namebench that will test all of the DNS addresses available and return the fastest available for your specific connection. I always reset our router and computers to their top three recommendations. Latency for some providers we've had is as high as 240ms. Latency to most of the servers on the left coast where we live using the top DNS recommendations from Namebench is around 26ms to 39ms, sometimes better. Just had a look and here's today's speeds...


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

richsadams said:


> That's almost certainly it...or at least a good part of it. I rarely ever use our provider's DNS though. There's a terrific little (free) program called Namebench


Rich,

Thanks! I've bookmarked this and will test it when I get back to the house. I didn't even know that you could change DNS services... I thought it was locked to your ISP.

I guess I should have realized it. I have recently purchased a private VPN (to avoid being hit by "Firesheep" or equivalent) that I use while traveling when connected to public hot spots. Obviously, the DNS lookup in that case is provided by the VPN provider and not by the local ISP.

/Jim


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

flynz4 said:


> Rich,
> 
> Thanks! I've bookmarked this and will test it when I get back to the house. I didn't even know that you could change DNS services... I thought it was locked to your ISP.
> 
> ...


Yep..it's really quite simple to change the DNS you're using. Apple makes it extremely easy for Macs and their routers, but it's not difficult with PC's and other routers either. A quick Google search of the equipment you have should turn up step-by-step instructions. Well worth the time it might take. (It only takes me a couple of minutes tops.) These are the two fastest for our area at the moment...

68.238.128.12
206.253.194.65

YMMV of course, so run Namebench and see what it returns.

VPN on the road is a very wise choice. :up:


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

Rich,

With FiOS I was using their supplied ActionTec router with the built in MoCA. Now with Comcast, I am using an Apple AirPort Express. I also have a pair of Apple 2TB Time Capsules set up for backups, but those are being used in bridge mode. They give me additional access points in the house for better WiFi connectivity. On the road I use an Airport Express, so everything now is done through the Airport utility.

/Jim


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

flynz4 said:


> Rich,
> 
> With FiOS I was using their supplied ActionTec router with the built in MoCA. Now with Comcast, I am using an Apple AirPort Express. I also have a pair of Apple 2TB Time Capsules set up for backups, but those are being used in bridge mode. They give me additional access points in the house for better WiFi connectivity. On the road I use an Airport Express, so everything now is done through the Airport utility.
> 
> /Jim


That's almost my exact setup. I have a Westell router from VZ (originally...now Frontier ) which is set to bridge mode and feeds an Apple Airport Extreme which is the main router. I also have an Apple Time Capsule set to bridge mode for a second access point downstairs (and to backup my Macbook Air).


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Thanks for keeping us up to date on Frontier's Oregon shenanigans. I wonder if the same thing will happen to us in WA state.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

cwerdna said:


> Thanks for keeping us up to date on Frontier's Oregon shenanigans. I wonder if the same thing will happen to us in WA state.


I'm still shaking my head. Frontier. Unbelievable.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

flynz4 said:


> I guess I should have realized it. I have recently purchased a private VPN (to avoid being hit by "Firesheep" or equivalent) that I use while traveling when connected to public hot spots. Obviously, the DNS lookup in that case is provided by the VPN provider and not by the local ISP.


OT to this thread, but if you're concerned about hijacking by Firesheep or by an ISP when you're traveling, you need to do more than just run a VPN to your house. You must access the VPN destination directly by IP address, not by using DNS. In other words, when you're at a public hot spot you can't trust it to tell you the IP address of your "VPN provider". Hopefully your "private VPN" does that correctly.

When I use a VPN to telecommute to work, my local computer accesses the remote end by a previously specified hard wired IP address, not by DNS. This is a bit harder to do if you're trying to connect in to a home machine that gets its IP addresses dynamically.

Also, if you're concerned about DNS, you must get rid of about 90% of the certificate authorities in your browser. E.g. 1st certificate in Firefox is for something called

TURKTRUST Elektronik Sertifika Hizmet Saglayicisi

Yeah, right, of course I trust those guys to never sign a site certificate w/o thoroughly checking.

Similarly, there are certificate authorities controlled by companies controlled by the Chinese government. Of course, I have nothing but the highest regard for their integrity.

Not that American companies are any better. E.g. in the past Verisign has signed fraudulent certificates for "Microsoft Corporation".

That's just scratching the surface of the possible attack vectors.

I haven't gotten rid of any certificates in my browser, but I will eventually get around to it. But I'm not under any delusions of security. The current SSL setup is much better than nothing, but it has huge holes that are probably being actively exploited.


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> OT to this thread, but if you're concerned about hijacking by Firesheep or by an ISP when you're traveling, you need to do more than just run a VPN to your house. You must access the VPN destination directly by IP address, not by using DNS. In other words, when you're at a public hot spot you can't trust it to tell you the IP address of your "VPN provider". Hopefully your "private VPN" does that correctly.


All of these security threats are depressing! You just keep peeling back the onion without ever hitting the core.

I do not set up a VPN to my house. Instead I use a VPN service (WiTopa) and I access it via an application that lets me select which location I want to access. I really do not know if they use direct IP address or a DNS.

I did this after I realized that the number of Firesheep downloads was approaching 1M users. I generally try to avoid public hotspots now... but if I do use one, I connect to WiTopia app shows that I am connected to their service, that might be confirmation that I succeeded... but I do not know for sure. . Still... if I foil the ~1M Firesheep users, then that should be a good start... shouldn't it?

If I go to Utrace... I can see my location move from place to play (worldwide) as I select different VPN sites. Is that a good enough validation that I am actually connected to my VPN?

/Jim


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

flynz4 said:


> Instead I use a VPN service (WiTopa) and I access it via an application that lets me select which location I want to access. I really do not know if they use direct IP address or a DNS.


I did a quick perusal of their web site and my initial impression is they are "on their game" and "top notch" (add your own random cliche!). I think you're "just right" in terms of using a service like that, but at the same time not being overly paranoid.

But I choose not to play "the game", in two different ways:
a) I use an Apple Powerbook on the road, less possibility of malware, viruses, etc. Perhaps I'm naive.
b) I don't really care if anyone intercepts me reading TiVo Community or Slashdot or Drudge Report. I'm not about to access my bank or brokerage from the road anyway.


----------



## flynz4 (Jun 20, 2009)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I did a quick perusal of their web site and my initial impression is they are "on their game" and "top notch" (add your own random cliche!). I think you're "just right" in terms of using a service like that, but at the same time not being overly paranoid.
> 
> But I choose not to play "the game", in two different ways:
> a) I use an Apple Powerbook on the road, less possibility of malware, viruses, etc. Perhaps I'm naive.
> b) I don't really care if anyone intercepts me reading TiVo Community or Slashdot or Drudge Report. I'm not about to access my bank or brokerage from the road anyway.


The reason that I chose WiTopia is because of the good reviews by some editors... not that is necessarily a great indicator. Still... it was better than taking a shot in the dark. I am also a Mac user. I use a 27" iMac in the house, and an 11.6" MacBook Air while traveling.

/Jim


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I have been a Witopia user for more than two years and I am very happy with their service.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

cwerdna said:


> Thanks for keeping us up to date on Frontier's Oregon shenanigans. I wonder if the same thing will happen to us in WA state.


It is. Rate increase wise.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

smark said:


> It is. Rate increase wise.


It'll probably play out the same way as it did here. Frontier will make some ludicrous rate hike demand, the public and regulators will tell them how ridiculous their thinking is and Frontier will say "Fine. We're taking our toys and leaving". A very progressive way to grow their business. 

Looking back on all of this nonsense I'm really beginning to believe that this was planned all along and that they just wanted the more lucrative phone and/or broadband business but had to agree to take the rest in the bargain. Shrewd. Very shrewd. It's either that or they are very, very stupid. Either way, Frontier management are liars and cheats.  IMHO of course.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

karlkras said:


> So am I to understand by this thread that Comcast is getting the nod over Frontier for high speed internet service? What has this world come to?
> I'm considering a move out to the Hillsboro area from Portland and was looking forward to finally getting FiOS and getting the Comcast blood suckers out of my pockets. If I'm getting the gist of what this thread is implying is that Comcast is the better of the two evils? I would have thought that impossible.


The lesser of two weasels is still a weasel.


----------



## mgama (May 22, 2002)

I just found this thread, and am wondering if there is anything I should be doing to lock in my current rates? Overall I'm still satisfied with FiOS, but disappointed by the CP flag getting turned on. I should add, located in Washington, and I assume I am a month-to-month customer, considering I got FiOS when it first became available years ago.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

mgama said:


> I just found this thread, and am wondering if there is anything I should be doing to lock in my current rates? Overall I'm still satisfied with FiOS, but disappointed by the CP flag getting turned on. I should add, located in Washington, and I assume I am a month-to-month customer, considering I got FiOS when it first became available years ago.


The blowback from the proposed 50% rate increase was so bad from the public, press, local regulatory agencies and even a couple of politicians that they dropped it...for now. They did initiate a $500 installation charge on FiOS TV to avoid getting any new customers however. Brilliant way to run a company. 

What you can do is search around a bit for the best Comcast deal being offered at the moment. Then call Frontier and tell them you want to cancel and move to Comcast. You'll eventually get transferred to customer retention. Explain that Comcast is offering you "X" and you're also upset about copy protection, etc. They will offer you a discount, free HBO, Movie Package, etc. Don't take the first offer. Keep pushing and keep pushing until they won't go any further. Then make a deal for as long a period as you can (one year, two years, as long as possible) with an open contract. Be sure that you can cancel without any penalties at any time.

A number of us here, yours truly included, have made some screaming deals. I was able to cut my monthly bill by $60 and get the Showtime movie package free for a year. That is the ONLY reason I'm still with Frontier at the moment. Others have made similar arrangements but with different packages.

Always be polite, cooperative and nice but firm and don't take the first thing they offer. I wouldn't refer to this post/thread or tell any stories...just be an "innocent" and unhappy customer.

Best of luck and let us know how it goes!


----------



## Floydian (Jul 16, 2009)

Hey, at least you have Fios as a choice... some of us are stuck with AT&T and Time Warner. Nuff said!!


----------



## Greg1 (Apr 19, 2011)

netringer said:


> My guess would be that it comes down to how expensive and non-cost-efficient it is to deploy and maintain fiber equipment in sparse areas. Palming the problem off to another company isn't going the problem go away. It would only be worse for a smaller company.
> 
> Frontier would be looking at it as getting a captive-customer list which they're looking to sell into DirecTV subscribers.


This is correct in the assumption of the costs involved in the deployment and maintenance of fiber equipment. Verizon Business (formerly MCI) deploys a network of optical switches which can reconfigure fiber optic connections at the wavelength level (many wavelengths per fiber optic circuit). In order to service individual homes with fiber to the house, they need not only the bandwidth, but the flexibility of this kind of network. It's similar to the 4G technology they're building for the wireless side.

So they deployed these ROADM switches in metro areas and then used the proceeds from FIOS to pay for the network expansion. But now that they've sold a crap-ton of their residential service to Frontier, I'd say that this is a dead end as Frontier has neither the capabilities nor the desire to support complex fiber infrastructures.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

> Frontier Communications' (NYSE: FTR) bizarre attempts to stop providing FiOS TV in Oregon now include declining an invitation by the Washington County Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) to explain why.


Read more: Frontier disses Oregon regulators curious about FiOS TV plans - FierceCable http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fr...-about-fios-tv-plans/2011-04-19#ixzz1KCpqjSro

More here: Frontier Snubs Regulators



> Frontier Senior Vice President Steven Crosby didn't return several calls from the Argus Monday for comment on missing the meeting.


Is anyone surprised?


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

Don't worry too much about it. With their current debt load, Frontier probably will be bankrupt in two to three years.:down::down:


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Besides the flyer that I posted at http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8475842#post8475842, here are more signs they seem to want to get out of the FiOS TV/cable business.

I received the flyer as part of unaddressed junk mail bundle (with local store ads) that I posted at https://picasaweb.google.com/105684...erJunkMailFlyer?authkey=Gv1sRgCM-D642LgrD_bw#. Notice they're steering people to DirecTV? Sorry I don't have a scanner handy and had to use my camera.

Unfortunately, my apartment complex is VERY poor for D* line of sight so the ad was poorly targeted. I had D* for 5 years when I lived elsewhere but I found that via http://www.dishpointer.com/ I won't be able to get D* nor will many others. That's probably why I only see a single D* dish at my complex of at least 50 units.


----------

