PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
2 edits | Unfair comparison... quote:
Our Frontier user reviews are thoroughly average, the carrier isn't offering next-generation speeds (most users are served with 3 Mbps or less)...
You're comparing apples and oranges. 3 Mbps may be merely "average" in regions that include big city, high density areas served by several competing ISP's such as cable and telcos. But that doesn't describe the type of regions served by Frontier. The "average" (the median, at least) in these more-rural areas, if you have the misfortune of being served by one of the big ILEC's, is zero; only a minority of customers have broadband. In contrast, Frontier provides broadband to >92% of their current subscribers. That's far, far above "average" for the type of regions in question.
As for the judges comments, she may be right in that this will diminish Frontier's ability to provide "least-cost public utility service." But I'm almost certain that referrs only to basic analog telephony, the only thing considered "utility service" under most state laws. But so what? This is an area where the law has been left behond and lost touch with reality. No one cares about landline telephony anymore; almost all areas are served by multiple mobile phone providers, who provide telephone service that's cheaper and better than landlines. |
