Slashdot Log In
Verizon Accused of Slighting Copper Infrastructure
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 12, 2007 01:58 PM
from the don't-have-to-share-the-fiber dept.
from the don't-have-to-share-the-fiber dept.
High Fibre writes "Regulatory hearings in Virginia raise questions about Verizon's stewardship of its copper infrastructure, with workers accusing the telecom of cheaping out on maintenance in Virginia due to its preoccupation with its FiOS network. Ars covers the fracas and gives more time to Verizon than the local media do. From Ars: 'During testimony given before the Virginia State Corporation Commission last week... workers painted a dire picture of the state of Verizon's copper network, saying that the equipment required to make repairs — including tools and cable — is not even available.' Verizon disagrees, saying that while it's a challenge to manage and maintain both networks, they are not neglecting their copper infrastructure." A union official gave written testimony about the Verizon problems, presumably so that individual workers would not have to testify in public and open themselves to retribution.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Verizon Copper Cutoff Traps Customers 269 comments
theodp writes with more mainstream attention to an issue discussed here a month back: "As it hooks up homes and businesses to its FiOS fiber-optic network service, Verizon has been routinely disconnecting the copper infrastructure that it was required to lease to other phone companies, locking customers into higher broadband bills, eliminating power outage safeguards, and hampering rivals. A Verizon spokesman argues customers are being given adequate notice of the copper cutoff, which includes this read-between-the-lines fine print: 'Current Verizon High Speed Internet customers who move to FiOS Internet service will have their Verizon High Speed Internet permanently disabled after their FiOS conversion.'" Customers are supposed to be informed by both the sales person and the installer that their first-mile copper will be cut, and this is not happening.
[+]
Technology: Verizon, Copper, Fiber, and the Truth 367 comments
Alexander Graham Cracker writes "Starting last spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service. We discussed the issue here a couple of times. In my experience, every time Verizon has installed FiOS at a friend's house, they have insisted they have to cut off the copper and move the POTS to the fiber. By doing so, they block anyone else such as COVAD or Cavalier from renting the copper for competitive access. Sources report that today, at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Verizon executive VP Thomas Tauke denied ever doing that. (The transcript should be up in a day or so. The AP coverage does not mention this detail.) I wonder if Rep. Markey's staff is interested in hearing from people who experienced Verizon disabling copper, and without notice?"
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Verizon, Fiber Or Die? 291 comments
dynamator writes "I live about 550 meters from my Verizon central office. I pay for their higher-tier 'Power Plan' DSL service, which boasts 3 Mbps down and 758 Kbsp up. For the past year, I've enjoyed excellent performance on this line. However, this past month Verizon has been hooking up my neighbors with FiOS, their new fiber-to-the-home system, and guess what, my connection speed and dependability have taken a nosedive. What can I do to build the case that this is really happening? Will anyone, least of all Verizon, care? Are they making me a fiber offer I can't refuse?" We discussed a few times last year what Verizon may be up to.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I suspect unions even more. Most likely, they are concerned about the jobs of their members, who maintain the copper networks.
My guess is, those involved with FIOS are either non-unionized at all, or are much younger and thus not as dear to the union bosses.
Verizion's actions not suprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Customers don't complain loudly enough about such things, so I personally have little sympathy for most people here in the US. Just one more reason for me to keep looking for greener pastures elsewhere in the world. Sad thing is on my trip to China I just got back from that it's more competitive with it's own consumers than the US is with it's own
Re: (Score:2)
>Just the government is getting it's cut in the action from all sides usually there.
And that would be different from the US how?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because Unions reward mediocrity.
I know someone who left here to go work in a union shop. He ended up coming back because the idiot who couldn't do shit and has a whopping year's seniority can't be fired (even though he is useless) so an idiot who doesn't do shit makes more than he was going to, ever.
It's also because unions are often famously controlled by organized crime.
Basically, there were two ways we could have gone to protect the rights of workers; co-ops and unions. But it's too hard to take over, control, and wield the power of a co-op, so unions it is.
I'll take you seriously when you're working for a democratic co-op. Unions are parasitic. They are better for the individual worker, but worse for the economy; co-ops would have been better for everyone but we're not there and probably never will be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod us all offtopic, although I'd submit that the premise of not trusting the union rep automagically is very much on topic.
Re:I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:5, Interesting)
While you have a valid point, my argument is not that such things never happen outside of a union shop, only that the prevalence is increased, and your attempt to place unions and corporations into some kind of false dichotomy has been noticed and is not appreciated.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it.
Look, this is based on direct observation, so why don't you take your patronizing attitude and blow it out your ass? I've worked in union shops (luckily, in a non-union position) and I've worked in non-union shops, and I've seen what I've seen. The plural of anecdote is not data, but every time I see a union do anything, I see certain people at the top taking advantage of the people below them in the union, and I see the union used to protect people who do not do their job from being terminated.
Is it okay for a manager to protect someone who doesn't do their job? Of course not. Is it okay for a union to do the same thing? Of course not. And the fact that managers do it doesn't excuse the fact that unions do it, or the other way around. It's all bad.
Don't try to distract people from my message with misdirection. As you can see from sibling comments, it's already failed.
Parent
Re:I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not accusing you of such tactics, but don't deny that unions are full of thugs.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The unions, themselves were a result of bosses stomping on the rights of workers in order to maximize their own profits.
Even if you're not in a union yourself, you're probably benefiting from the literal blood, sweat and tears shed by the early union organizers in
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What union are you talking about? The union that I am forced to pay into (i.e. fair share) has consistently seen to it that their dues go up but our benefits go down. For example, when I first worked the state, it was in a temporary clerical pool. I, and everyone else, had to pay union dues but got no benefits. Zero. So why were we paying dues if we weren't getting bene
Where the anti-union rhetoric comes from (Score:5, Interesting)
Unions are a victim of their own success. They got better contracts and better benefits, which raised the price of the goods and services produced by union shops. Laws of the free market then shifted business away from union shops to offshore and non-union shops. Unions then resorted to some questionable tactics to "fight to keep what they have" from heavy lobbying and lawmaking to outright extortion and violence.
This fight has cost our country, and has negatively affected *your* wages as well as mine. This is not information from Faux News, just google economists and unions. E.g. , economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone and it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
Sorry, I know it's good for you and your family right now, but you can't mess with the free market without consequences down the road.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one of the models spread by corporatists. For a more accurate one, see below ...
Raised prices to better match social costs, right. As one would expect of a free market: one which takes account of all costs, rather than externalizing them. Of course, there's also a strong point to be made that such costs should be raised for all
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Never.
and stop automatically trusting the corporations which demonize them.
I don't, and I never will.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get me.
Re:Where the anti-union rhetoric comes from (Score:5, Informative)
I myself am not a union worker, I'm an engineer/software developer. There are probably 60 people total at our company that are office workers in sales/engineering/management that are not union, only the shop floor workers are.
Some of the negative things I've seen the union do:
-Block the lay-off/firing of dead weight employees that have statistically cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars due to simply being able to perform their job like 90% of the other workers in the shop. I've also seen them bring legal retribution to the company when they fired them anyway and forced them to bring the employee back.
-I've seen them hold meetings encouraging (borderline ordering) union workers to vote for X candidate in local and national elections
-When the shop floor falls behind in production and decides to re-open Saturday to make up for it (which can happen for weeks at a time across a few months) union official demand that X% of office workers work on Saturdays as well regardless of whether there is work for them to do, and despite the fact that while most shop floor workers are getting paid time and a half office workers are salary and don't get paid so much as a dime extra for their time. Saturday work days are optional for shop floor workers and typically there is an overabundance of volunteers suggesting that they don't have a problem coming in for the extra cash.
-I've seen union officials keep the company from switching to a more suitable insurance plan that not only would offer more coverage but be slightly cheaper (the insurance company was phasing out the old plan and making a good offer on the new one to entice people to switch) simply because the old plan better suited them despite the fact that the new plan was better suited for a vast majority of the other workers in the shop.
Some of the negative things I've seen the union do:
-fight to keep bonus plans reasonable and generally increasing on a year-to-year basis
-fight for higher overall wages of the union workers (which are actually lower then our non-union sister plants)
On a whole most of the office workers don't seem to have a problem with anyone but the union reps (for forcing Saturday labor etc.), yet I constantly catch bits of conversations from the shop floor workers who seem to constantly carry an "us vs them" mentality against anyone who works in the office.
Also we're the only company in our field that is unionized, we've been losing more and more business on a yearly basis because our competitors are able to produce similar products at prices lower then our labor rate/scrap product ratio alone. As a result we started outsourcing labor last year just to stay competitive, we haven't laid anyone off in the process but we had numerous threats of violence (including a man in the parking lot who called in to tell us that he had his rifle trained at the head of the HR department) when we cut back the number of people needed for overtime work. Even after outsourcing our company hasn't had any mass layoffs in the last 15 years.
I went into this company with a positive view of unions from my father's years of praise... after 3 years my view is dramatically less impressed. I see it as just another corrupt systems like so many other corrupt systems we deal with on a daily basis.
I can't speak for unions in general, but at my small company in my small NH town we don't have any million dollar salary CEOs, nor do the engineers make all that much more then the shop floor staff. We don't have the best management but on a whole I genuinely feel that most of the management make what they feel are the best decisions for the company. I can honestly say that from my first hand dealings with my company's union I think my company would be much better off without them, and in the future I will probably avoid any company that uses union labor based on my experience here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to agree, but there are some exceptions. Sometimes unions can destroy companies by refusing to compromise. Eastern Airlines was put out of business because its unions refused to change their contracts. Mainly though, they're a great deal for anyone who's in them. Whether the conservatives admit it or not, the unions were what grew the middle class in the 50s and 60s. Having a steady job you won't get fired from on a whim allows you to buy a house/car/whatever and not worry so much about where your paycheck is coming from. Also, I think that if labor was stronger, you wouldn't see things like CEOs getting $50 million pay packages for doing nothing.
If IT were unionizable, I'd be on-board in a second. Think about all the stuff you don't typically get as an IT employee... Generous vacation you're actually allowed to take. Clear definitions of your work hours, duties and rules. Not having to play the salary-negotiation shell game. Encouraged long-term employment, and therefore better domain-specific knowledge within your industry. Paid training. Etc.
Sure, they have their problems. But faulting people just because they have it better than you is not a good way to go. Heck, if you told me to give up a small percentage of my salary for guaranteed high wages and raises every year, I'd say you were crazy not to sign up. Just having someone negotiate the terms of your employment for you is reason enough.
Parent
anti-union rhetoric (Score:4, Informative)
A trade union is a monopoly. A trust concerning itself with (mostly — anti-competitive) efforts towards maintaining and ever increasing the prices of its members product (labor).
Nobody likes monopolies — the sooner you are busted with RICO and other anti-trust laws, the better. Your corruption [nlpc.org] and violence [nrtw.org] have made you far less likable, than most corporations are or deserve to be.
Those, who have grown up in a Soviet Union and similar countries, have particular dislike for trade unions — workers' solidarity, May 1st, class warfare... As far as I am concerned, for example, your sorry Socialist union-official neck belongs on a lamp-post... Nothing personal.
Those (truly) poor, who wish to immigrate to this country to work, are appalled by your arguing, that Americans are, somehow (by birthright?), entitled to better jobs, than Mexicans or Thais or Uzbeks.
And all — including the natively born and raised Americans — still remember the crookery surrounding the name "Hoffa", and the recent NYC-transit strike. We are all wondering, for example, why using the electronic EZ-Pass is only $0.5 cheaper, than going through a unionized toll-collector (EZ-Pass would've fazed those bums out, so extra is being collected for your undeserved pensions). Etc.
I do strongly dislike Microsoft. But:
- it is possible to not buy them;
- they don't slash anybody's tires;
- they don't beat the competition up on the street;
.Much like the Luddite's of the past, you tend to stand in the way of progress — except now you phrase yourself differently. Instead of the honest "this will eliminate my job", you are lying: "it is not safe" (witness the union opposition against automated subway trains, for example).
Got the idea, on where the subject comes from, yet?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The "Screw you I'm Union" attitude that they cop whenever performance is an issue, or, especially, when you ask them to help with something that is not explicitly covered in their contract. As far as they're concerned that job is their property, and it can't be taken away without a huge costly fight, and so they know they're not going to be held accountable.
2) The near-unbearable sense
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your other specific scenario
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would suspect Verizon normally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
fix the old or install the new (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What it really means from a Government "fair play" point of view is that Verizon doesn't have to share or lease it's Fiber Network and therefore removing all competition. When folks pay for monthly phone service from verizon you are paying for the maintenance of the infrastructure of the copper network. Now that they have fiber, they could care less about copper.
I think one of the happiest days of my life was being able to kick Verizon o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, why doesn't Verizon just roll out fiber as a direct replacement to copper? As the FIOS network takes over one segment, it would seem to make sense to transition that entire segment entirely to Fiber and drop the copper altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
As a city dweller, I can tell you that Verizon most certainly is NOT planning on installing FiOS everywhere. All of the suburbs surrounding my small city have FiOS because the demand is there. They currently have no timetable for installing it anywhere within the city limits. This is despite the fact that the increased density of the city would yield twice as many subscribers per mile of fiber.
I'm not even able to get DSL at more than 3mbps from Verizon and, thanks to the ridiculous state government, I don'
Yes (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But it makes business sense to maintain the old even as you replace it. I worked for a company that changed their website from the old Perl-driven one to a new Java-driven one. My job was to keep the old one a) running and b) up-to-date with the new one, so when the switchover was made to the new one, it would be seamless and no one would notice the difference.
Verizon has to look at it the same way: if they neglect the copper, no matter how nifty the FiOS is, they stand to lose customers, who want decent
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, that's all fine and good - I can always switch to any of a number of other telephone carriers who do a better job of maintaining my phone service. Oh, right - I can't because Verizon has a de facto monopoly on telco services in my area - much of it due to government regulation and exclusive rights.
That's the problem with the infrastructure being run by for-profit corporations - there is effectively no competition. Between rights of way, exclusive rights for areas, and a century of stacked up regulations the barriers to entry are insurmoutable for all but the most dense, wealthy areas of the country. Were I king, I would separate the infrastructure from the services. Sadly, I'm not (as I hear it's good to be the king). It would not solve all the issues, but it would at least start down the road of reducing the anticompetitive behavior of the incumbent utility operators against data (and power) providers which do not own infrastructure.
Parent
Posting my trouble ticket here (Score:5, Funny)
Can't loop the smart jack on circuit 36.QGDQ.684591..CD LC 703/26
Come on fix it....replaceing f2 pairs can be fun...come on guys.
From a Virginian (Score:2, Insightful)
Valid, I think (Score:5, Insightful)
The net effect here is that people in poor areas face degraded service while people in wealthy, high-density areas have enhanced service and options. This is exactly what common carrier status and state funding of telecomm was supposed to avoid.
Verizon should be forbidden from doing anything other than POTS (and DSL, provided they provide equal access to it, unlike the current situation). Let another company run fiber and operate a network over it, Verizon should not be allowed to run competing services when doing so violates their common carrier status.
Don't Blame Verizon (Score:3, Interesting)
The regulations pre-date the Internet, that's the problem. Here in NH, Verizon is putting nothing into its telecomm infrastructure except in the very densely populated part of the state near Boston, where they want to sell TV over FiOS. The rest of the State they'r
Tools and Equipment Are Available (Score:2)
Can you hear me now? Hello? Hello-oo!? (Score:2)
Solution: Return to single-provider phone service (Score:3, Interesting)
The local cable provider around here is very good about fixing things and running a fast network, but even they don't have the power a single provider would.
Consider some of the items you get with open-competitive comm service:
Now, think of the stuff we had under the previous system:
I think it's time to re-regulate all telecom. The private companies have been given a chance, and proven they can't police themselves.
A lot of people who didn't like the old system complain that they had to rent their phone, or that the pace of innovation wasn't as fast under a single provider. In my opinion, having reliable service is worth forgoing the buzzword-of-the-week. I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this.
Re:Solution: Return to single-provider phone servi (Score:2)
2. Everyone knows (or should know) that the worst of all possible scenarios is a government-enforced monopoly over a market but a corporation as the producer. Worst, that is, except for the producer.
3. That said, it's not like there is no overlap between land-line and other communications services. It's not as if you have copper or NOTHIN
Why Use Fiber or Copper? (Score:2)
Why maintain the shared copper plant? (Score:4, Funny)
Verizon does not need to share the new fiber plant [com.com]. The copper plant is what Verizon has to share with other people. Why invest in something you don't get all to your self. It will be interesting to try and get T1 and DS3 lines from AT&T in the Verizon footprint. Although I suspect that AT&T is doing the same thing with their copper plant.
The regulators are getting exactly what their policies have said they want.
Remember Ma Bell is back! and this time she's pissed.
Verizon Copper's Just Fine... (Score:4, Funny)
(@$!sd2
---- NO SIGNAL ----
Re:A union official... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd trust anyone working out in the field compared to the suit and tie CEO who would could only be dragged into the trenches for photo-ops.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with a union official? I mean, they COULD be someone in the trenches. Or they could be an employee of the union, and almost certainly are; they do no real work, and their entire existence can be filed under "administrative overhead".