Frontier CEO: 6 Mbps Just Fine For Most People → 6 Mbps is more than fine

If there was money to be made serving up faster speeds, don't you think they would offer it?

The fact is that consumers aren't willing to pay for faster service.

No, the fact is Frontier is not interested in upgrading their infrastructure so that it can offer higher speeds. Their lack of Backhauls only exacerbates their crappy last mile networks that struggle to provide DSL service as it is. The truth is Frontier cannot even offer higher speeds unless it invests in its network.

Sure they are. Why are people paying more for FiOS, UVerse, or Comcast then? The fact remains that Frontier can't make money as it stands, let alone make money increasing their level of service.

Don't mistake "money to be made doing X" with "can't make money doing X" due to mismanagement and poor business decisions.

I did, however, just check the Frontier website, and it looks like they offer 6, 12, and 25 megabit packages. Not that anyone's line probably qualifies for 12 or 25, but it's funny how they manage to offer these packages in areas where they have competition from Comcast.

EDIT: I tried the above only using my ZIP code, and it shows all of these packages. Upon further investigation, I just tried to "order" the 25Mbit package, and upon entering my address, was immediately disqualified. I'm less than 9000 feet from the CO. So, I tried again, this time using the address of the CO. I was again disqualified and told that only the 6Mbit package is available. Isn't that illegal or something to advertise a product you don't actually sell?

I have the "Up to 6 meg plan" for 44.95 but i only get 3 megs at most, so i'm already paying twice as much for half of the service. If they could give me a 50 meg plan, i'd be more than willing to pay for that service.

The demand exists, they just have to bring it....

Verizon brought it, at a cost of $4K+/address passed, and people aren't buying it. The demand does not exist.

Even if you're willing to pay $80+/month for 25M+ service, your neighbors aren't, and with LTE coming, very few companies are going to risk investing in hardwiring houses that aren't going to buy in.

If my neighbors don't want the service, then that leaves more for me

And as far as the LTE, thats a mute point. I'm a gamer, and you just don't game wireless.

Frontier has a market cap of $4.4 billion, long-term debt of $8.4 billion, annual earnings of $137 million, and a BB (junk) credit rating.

Thus, they have two choices:

1. Serve people with 6 Mbps DSL and loudly proclaim that it is good enough.
2. Serve people with 6 Mbps DSL and loudly proclaim that it is too slow.

Rewiring with fiber would be a pipe dream. They do not have enough cash flow to do it out-of-pocket, and they also cannot borrow the money to do it at a low enough interest rate to make the deployment profitable.

As for 25 Mbps being available for Comcast areas, that's the nature of DSL. The areas closest to the central office are probably the areas that are dense enough for a coax operator to wire up.

Given Frontier's service areas, they'd be lucky to pay $6000 per house passed, vs. Verizon's $4000. After all, these are the areas that Verizon chose *not* to wire up with FiOS. In fact, these areas were so bad, Verizon sold them to Frontier! (Two-thirds of Frontier's access lines were acquired from Verizon.)

Plus, Verizon has an A (investment-grade) credit rating. Frontier has a BB (junk) credit rating.

If it was marginally profitable for Verizon, then it's uneconomical for Frontier. If it was uneconomical for Verizon, then it's even more uneconomical for frontier.

Its "moot", but I'm digressing.

While I don't have anything against online gaming, your desire to play, and its requirement for low latency isn't going to be very convincing when you're in effect, asking for massive subsidy compared to other technologies that your neighbors will accept.

Wireless will dominate low-density markets from now on, unless folks like you organize and pre-fund / pre-register, Google fiber-hood style, and agree to contract over the long term, at rates profitable for an overbuilder, or break-even for your coop.

The longer one waits, the more folks whine for subsidy, blame the incumbents, or put your faith in government building an illegal muni, the less likely you'll ever have more than the wireless offers.

An "illegal" muni? What kind of AT&T crack are you smoking?

Munis are by and large illegal, as they usually violate the takings clause, and in doing so, eventually, will implode. Industry is careful in their challenges, given the greedy consumer court of public opinion, but that doesn't make municipal "competition" legit.

Coops and overbuilding are better ways to address the desire to provide an alternative last mile, as the accounting tends to be truly transparent, arms-length, and the public is not liable for the incompetence of government workers feeding at an all-you-can-eat tax buffet.