Verizon, Copper, Fiber, and the Truth

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?"

Not really surprised

[Ryukotsusei]

So they're blocking off potential competitors? At least it's spurring the move to Fiber Optic...

Re:Not really surprised

[nschubach]

That's my question. Can't other phone companies use the fiber line into your house as well? I thought all fiber/copper went back to the same switching station anyway.

Re:

[bigdady92]

No they can't. Verizon laid the line, it's not a public utility like cable at all. It's VZ property, there can be no other competitors. AT&T won't let VZ near their fibre and vice versa.

Re:Not really surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

They laid the cable as well, but decades ago. The difference is: the copper was installed under "rate of return" regulation; aka "the more money you waste; the more money you get from the subscribers..."

That's not true for the glass, as the Bells [in most states] got freed from RoR several years ago.

So the copper is essentially yours & mine, held in trust by Ma's stepkids. Can we sue them for neglect, and get custody, al-la K-Fed?

Re:Not really surprised

[tinkerghost]

Fiber is getting to play by new rules. Old rules say that if you are going to use the public right-of-way, you have to share the lines. The new rules say - gimmey-da-money-and-shut-up.

The old Telco laws were expressly written to handle the copper POTS lines since there was no other service. Now that fiber is being run in, the telco's are saying that since the law says POTS, it's POTS & POTS only - and spending billions squashing attempts at updating the law while they're at it.

As a side note, I have a friend who works for Verizon & per the techs, they only yank the copper if it makes fishing the fiber easier - otherwise it's too much work & trouble.

Re:Not really surprised

[BLKMGK]

I have a friend who works for Verizon too. His perspective, in Baltimore, is quite interesting. Seems they have STOPPED "maintaining" the copper. They do service calls when it breaks but no more tree cutting or other routine maintenance. He says some areas are so bad that as fast as they fix one issue another crops up and the waiting list for service calls is long enough that it can take a week or more to get a tech out. The way he explains it is that as soon as they get fiber out they are going to rent or sell the copper albatross and let the next guy in line deal with the mess that has come from the lack of maintenance.

As for pulling copper.... Their peeve where he is at is the cable companies. Cable companies come in with VOIP and use "their" boxes on the side of the house to junction the inside copper. So their management has been threatening to begin removing these junction boxes from the sides of the houses and remove the copper from the pole too. This means that if someone switches from VOIP to them again they incur additional charges. He claims that the boxes on the sides of the house belong to Verizon and that their management says this is kosher to do. Oh and they are also upset that the cable companies aren't doing things like inside wiring service calls. He says that when an inside issue occurs the cable companies tell the customer they cannot help and so customers are witching back to Verizon in order to get these problems resolved. The Verizon employees are apparently upset that they are somehow held to different standards than the VOIP companies etc.

He started telling me about this over a year ago. I've only just recently seen articles in the Wash. Post about local communities in Northern VA waking up to the fact that Verizon has stopped maintaining the copper infrastructure they were entrusted with and that the tax payers partially funded - I couldn't help but snicker when Verizon denied this activity.

As for FIOS. They are forcing the techs to work OT and drive quite a bit more than they used to as copper techs so many refuse to switch. They also monitor the fiber techs a good bit more with GPS etc. so no more parking lot naps (I'm serious). FIOS is taking awhile to roll out because it is a lot of work for an install - triple play takes 8 hours and they often have to replace ALL cable in the house....

Re:Not really surprised

[teebob21]

I wonder if a land owner could make a case to receive rent from Verizon of putting private property (fiber) into the public right-of-way access across the his land. I'd imagine that many lawyers would jump at the chance to try for a suit that would be that widespread and lucrative.

Not any lawyers worth their salt, I'd imagine. Public easements are declared explicitly in property deeds and titles. They are a known burden (legal term, not in the typical sense of the word) when the owner bought the property, and any objections must be made and satisfied prior to sale. Now, if Verizon or Quest or Comcast were to install a feeder line or a customer drop through my property and outside the easement without permission, you would have the makings of a civil suit. However, rather than pay me rent into perpetuity, the operators would likely relocate the line into the easement, and settle for the reasonable cost of damage to the lawn.

Any further legal action (on the basis of an easement violation) would be frivolous and likely get dismissed from court.

Re:

[tinkerghost]

Interesting tidbit from one Verizon tech perspective (why would we want to do more work etc.) On the other hand, I wonder how many situations arise where its just so much easier to yank the copper instead of spending time / man hours / $$$ to "fish" through the fiber.

Actually, that's from the perspective of one of the managers who deals directly with install tech problems. As for how often, FWIU, copper is being yanked when it's underground installs and feeds that have to go through thick treetops. It's ea

Price of recycled Copper

[infonography]

These days Copper market is up, likely they view it as a money saving issue. They want to keep the copper tubes from eroding as data goes thru them. (what did you think that series of Tubes was made from???)

You know what a series of copper tubes gets you at the recycle place? Being really frugal gets you that Villa in Tuscany.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a political decision not a technical constraint. The Powell FCC ruled that they do not need to share the unregulated fiber; the 96 Telecom Act required they share the copper.

Re:

[nine-times]

I say let them put in fiber and cut copper. Let them go through all that to block potential competitors. Once they're finished, immediately pass a law saying that they need to open fiber to competitors.

Re:

[644bd346996]

Why wait?

Re:

[BobMcD]

Because if you pass the law now, you may not get the fiber. Let them build it out first on the assumption that they're going to get rich off of it, and watch how fast they get it done!

Why wait?

[falconwolf]

Because if the telcos know they'll have to share fiber they won't put it in. It makes sense to have the fiber in before requiring it be open.

Falcon

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

It makes sense to have the fiber in before requiring it be open.

Provided, of course, that one has no aversion to being exposed as a common thief.

I'd be the first to recognize that the history of the telco industry is insanely complicated, but the solution is to find a way to divide things up that takes both the private and public investments in the infrastructure into account and then leave things that way, with a clear division between public and private domains. Preferably the public part should be

infrasrtructure

[falconwolf]

I'd be the first to recognize that the history of the telco industry is insanely complicated, but the solution is to find a way to divide things up that takes both the private and public investments in the infrastructure

Oh, I agree. As I said many tymes I think ownership of some infrastructure should be separate from the services that it provides. For instance I think it might be better for a community to build and own the infrastructure but allow open access for any services the infrastructure can provide. Take cable, a nonprofit, for profit, or the city owns the cable but then it allows different companies to offer cable tv, internet access, phone service, or a Triple Play with all three. I would be able to go to one company for tv, another for phone service, and a third for net access.

Re:

[Lumpy]

Problem is let's take cable. most negotiate a franchise agreement that blocks all competition in that city. Comcast in your town? you cant legally start up your own cable company, there's a law on the books that makes your business illegal.

This was done on purpose to kill community TV setups in the 70's and 80's. Where my parents lived we had no cable TV but the neighborhood had a huge tower on one vacant lot and a TV distribution system, we recieved 8 channels clear as day as well as had 2 sattelite ch

Re:Not really surprised

[CloneBot]

Fiber be damned, bring me lower prices. Competition between competitors is guaranteed to bring down prices. The fact that I have no choice in carriers is the one reason I have to pay $30-40 for a decent connection. Leaving down a cable would definetly lead to a competitive market.

And DSL be damned. When the DSL is sluggish like in my neighborhood, it is not an option.

Re:Not really surprised

[dada21]

And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property? It wasn't Verizon who made a regulation making them the sole provider -- it was your local and State government. Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

The monopoly IS the problem.

[WindBourne]

the problem here, is that verizon is bringing in FIOS to those communities who allow them to change the twisted pair monopoly to a fiber monopoly WITH no competition from old twisted pair. So, there are only 2 choices to these homes (most all of the cable contracts do not require resellers be allowed). I am guessing that it will require a new president who is not part of the establishment (perhaps paul or obama) who will do the right thing as opposed to what brings their party more money.

Govt corrupt, but so is election process...

[zooblethorpe]

Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

Color me cynical, but what do you suggest when the whole election process has been subverted to the point that only pro-business candidates ever seem to get far enough to be voted upon? Seriously, when was the last time a truly progressive (and I don't mean "liberal", I mean "working for positive change

Re:

[Red Flayer]

And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property?

Regardless of the law, there is a market disincentive to run cables that duplicate those run by someone else. Because of the high infrastructure cost (cabling especially) phone and cable (or fiber) internet are natural monopolies that reduce competitive forces.
This is the entire reason for granting certain rights to companies like Verizon in exchange for demanding certain things, such as allowing competitors to lease spa

Re:

[MightyYar]

I think that it's okay to be mad at Verizon, who seem to be in bed with whatever candidate you try to vote for.

natural monoply

[falconwolf]

And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property? It wasn't Verizon who made a regulation making them the sole provider -- it was your local and State government. Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

Actually the best way to deal with a Natural Monopoly [wikipedia.org] like landlines [wikipedia.org] is to separate the infrastructure from services. Maybe instead of a business owning the infrastructure local governments, nonprofits, or business can own it but then they are required to allow open access. This is what's being done in northeastern Utah with a Broadband Utopia [ieee.org]. A group of communities in the area built the infrastructure and allows anyone to offer any services it is capable of. It could be internet access, phone service, "cable" tv, or any combination (Triple Play". How would you like a 30 megabit per second, mps, connection? That's what's available now however speeds could get to 100mps.

Re:

[edwdig]

Higher densities would double or triple demand on a single node.

Yes, higher densities increase demand on the nodes. But nodes are cheap to add. Individual fibers are cheap. The expensive thing is digging up the ground to lay the fiber. The lower the density, the more digging you have to do.

Re:Not really surprised

[bigpat]

Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

Thanks, but I think I am right to be mad at both Verizon and my government. After all it was Verizon that has been screaming that it can't(won't) offer its customers the services they want unless they are give legal monopoly to do it. And because my elected representatives sacrificed long term consumer interests for a short term political benefit, I am mad at them too.

Re:

[Shakrai]

Unfortunately, all major-party politicians (read: the only ones who are ever going to win until we do away with this damned two-party system) are the corporations' bitches.

Explain to me how we have a "damned two-party system" and what exactly is stopping a third-party from winning an election? There is no law that I'm aware of that states the United States has a two party system. The people bitching about our "two-party system" are missing the point.

The "two-party system" isn't the problem. The problem is that we as a people have allowed ourselves to be overly influenced by the media to such an extent that we buy it hook-line and sinker when they say that somebody can'

Re:Not really surprised

[Belacgod]

The winner-takes-all congressional election system, and the committee system in Congress, ensures that voting for a third party will never be as effective as working within the locally-dominant party to bend it to your ends. The former also leads both parties into a race to the middle, which leaves no political space for a third party (this is just the Median Voter Theorem).

Bipartisan legislative rules, by which Congress is run, are largely deals between the two major parties at the expense of any potential third one. Even campaign finance reform's major effect is to make it harder to break out into the public consciousness, which redounds to the benefit of existing party organizations.

The two-party system is enshrined in no law, but the structure of the system makes it certain that we end up with that.

Re:

[edwdig]

DSL speeds are dependent on your distance from the central office. As you get further away, the max speed you can get goes down.

Re:

[C0rinthian]

They can extend that with remote DSLAMS. But depending on population density, they may not bother.

Re:

[Ambiguous Coward]

This is entirely my point...in many cases, it is NOT dependant on population density. It is dependant on whether or not they have to bother to compete. In my case, they don't. I either pay for their over-priced "service," or I'm stuck on 56k, dense population or not.

Which, again, is precisely what Verizon is attempting. Do not give these companies ANY good faith. They squandered that long ago. Given the chance, they will do as little as possible to make as much as possible. The vast majority of their revenu

Re:

[sconeu]

What do you mean, depending on population density? Pacbell, I mean SBC, I mean AT&T won't do it in Los Angeles, for fucks sake!

Are you sure?

[WindBourne]

You would think that wires run to the closest exchange, but that is not always the case. I saw a case at USWest (LONG ago), where the closest exchange was across the street, but because it was added later, our wires ran several miles up the road.

Covad's 15 Mbps offerings

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are explicitly trying to block Covad's ADSL2. Here's a link:

http://speakeasy.net/business/adsl2/ [speakeasy.net]

Notice that 15 Mbps is far better than what the Telco's are offering. ATT in particular, who will only give you 6 Mbps for Internet access, out of the 100 Mbps that their U-Verse lines are capabable of.

Also note that ADSL2 is only now just being rolled out to select areas, and is for business. Once competition heats up, the price will drop.

Sigh. I wish I had it now.

So yes, keep your copper lines.

Happened to me

[Shimmer]

When I switched from cable internet to FiOS earlier this year I was told that had to permanently cut the copper wire to my house. So I now have fiber phone service. Works fine, except for the short delay that always occurs between picking up the phone and using it. They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.

Happened to Me Too!

[queenb**ch]

We had FIOSS put in because the 7 MB/sec line was faster and cheaper than the T-1. They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore. It sounded suspicious to me, but I stood in what was then my front yard and watched them do it.

2 cents,

Queen B.

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore.

I hope you got a rebate for the exchange of the copper on your next bill. :)

For anyone else, when this happens, tell them to leave the copper with you, so YOU can recycle it for a buck or two. :)

Re:

[tlhIngan]

They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore.

I hope you got a rebate for the exchange of the copper on your next bill. :)

For anyone else, when this happens, tell them to leave the copper with you, so YOU can recycle it for a buck or two. :)

Except if it's on their side of the demarc box, it's their copper. If it

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

But *do* they own it? They're bringing in a new service. If Verizon isn't the one who laid down the copper originally, I'm not sure it's Verizon's to pull out.

It wouldn't matter to me personally as I use my cellphone for my only phoneline, anyway. :)

Also, they don't offer FiOS in my area (Bellevue, WA). :(

Re:

[Dun Malg]

But *do* they own it? They're bringing in a new service. If Verizon isn't the one who laid down the copper originally, I'm not sure it's Verizon's to pull out.

The copper belongs to whomever operates the system. That's what makes them your Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. Access to their infrastructure is what they sell. In your case, it belongs to Verizon. It's 99.999% likely that it was also installed by Verizon (or rather, by GTE or Bell Atlantic before they merged) as it's almost unheard of for an area to change ILECs.

Re:

[ivan256]

I wonder if the tech was lying because he didn't know why he was pulling the copper, of if he was telling a partial truth and intended to personally sell the copper.

Re:

[Cro Magnon]

8 hours? Meh! My "obsolete" copper wire phone service kept working during a 5 day power outage. Hooray to progress! :-P

Re:

[FuzzyDaddy]

It's funny. I always thought the power of the phone line for the phone was useless because everyone used cordless phones. Then we lost power for several days (in DC, BIG storm, many tree corpses several years back), and I found an old corded phone in the basement, which we used for days.

Re:

[kalirion]

Wait, are you saying it's impossible to get the FiOS for internet only and keep the standard phone line?

Did you even ask?

[ivan256]

When I had mine installed (twice - I have two ONTs, one for business and one for personal) I had them leave the copper. The guy told me it was no problem. For the second install when I asked I was told that they always leave the copper because MA law requires them to offer E911 service over it. Other co-workers in the area have said the same. There was a 1 year gap between my two installs, so perhaps you got your installed before they stopped pulling the copper? Did you even ask them not to pull the copper?

Re:

[Kadin2048]

Lastly, if you have FiOS internet, why not get Vonage, or another VoIP phone service? More features, less money, and you already have the battery-backup issue anyway.

I think the problem is that, suppose some day down the road, you want to get DSL instead of fiber? You're screwed. If you didn't know to stop the VZ boys from pulling the copper, you're now their customer, basically forever.

Or what if you move into a house where the previous owner wasn't smart enough to stop them from pulling the copper? Guess you're locked in, too.

It strikes me as a blatantly unethical business practice, which serves no purpose except to eliminate competition by getting around rules that

Re:

[fahrbot-bot]

They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.

I hope they told you that when the battery needs to be replaced, you'll have to pay for the new one... It's in the fine print. Enjoy.

Re:Happened to me

[steve6534]

Because glass doesn't conduct electricity as well as copper :-)

Re:Happened to me

[Shimmer]

I assume you're joking, but in case you're not: The phone company has a separate power source that operates even when the consumer power lines are down. Sending this electricity through copper lines to operate household phones works fine. But glass fiber is not quite as electrically conductive.

Re:Happened to me

[ivan256]

The other part of that story is that the the phone cables are the lowest on the poles, so something hitting the lines has to take out the high-voltage power lines, the lower voltage power lines, and the cable TV lines before the phone service is knocked out. If something takes out the whole pole, your phone goes out too, even though the telco's CO has a big battery/generator to backup the phone power.

All that need be done...

[packetmon]

All someone would need to do to validate these claims would be to bring in a competitor and have them try to offer services through said copper. It would be hearsay to make a statement without something other than a "word of mouth" to back up a claim. Doing so - bringing in an alternative provider - provides irrefutable proof. However being crafty I can think of an instance where someone @ Verizon can make an argument charging that the copper coming into the home was causing some form of crosstalk which caused attenuation issues and required the copper being "disabled". Note the intentional use of "disabled" as opposed to "cut". I personally could see some twobit Verizon shlum doing something stupid on their own accord. "If we cut the copper John we never have to worry about losing our job!"

Re:

[Dun Malg]

However being crafty I can think of an instance where someone @ Verizon can make an argument charging that the copper coming into the home was causing some form of crosstalk which caused attenuation issues and required the copper being "disabled".

Change "crafty" to "ignorant". Fiber conducts light. Copper conducts electricity. There's no crosstalk between them. Basic physics here.

I personally could see some twobit Verizon shlum doing something stupid on their own accord. "If we cut the copper John we never have to worry about losing our job!"

More work doesn't give them job security. There's always more work than they have people for. About 10-odd years ago, GTE (now Verizon) laid off just about every field tech with more than 15 years experience because they cost too much. Management is their biggest threat to job security.

Verizon disabling copper?

[eniac42]

Nope, my pennies still seem to work..

Re:Verizon disabling copper?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Nope, my pennies still seem to work..

Only if they're 1982 or older.

Re:

[StikyPad]

That's thanks to Viagra, not Verizon.

Oh, PENNIES...

Re:

[MrNiceguy_KS]

That actually gives me an idea. All Verizon customers start paying your bill in pennies as a protest.

Of course, this would require having a way to pay your bill in person. I don't have VZ, so I have no idea if this is the case.

Re:Verizon disabling copper?

[sedmonds]

You can always go to corporate offices and pay in pennies. In the end of a sock. Swung at speed.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

at least Verizon hasn't disabled *that* as well. Although I'm sure they'd love to...

Nickels are safe, unless Verizon changes its corporate strategy to simply dime us to death.

Re:

[Ambiguous Coward]

Well, I don't know about you but after paying my last bill, I feel like I've been drawn and quartered.

-G

Re:

[Ambiguous Coward]

And even if I do ever get fiber to where I live, it'll probably be a day late and a dollar short, to boot.

-G

New twist on RTFA...

[Otter]

Ummm, maybe it would have made sense to hold off on this story until it's found to be true, instead of telling us that "sources report" something that's not in the linked article? Far be it from me to doubt Alexander Graham Cracker's "sources", but just on principle...

Re:

[oahazmatt]

When I have a friend who actually works for Verizon and claims that this happened, I tend to believe it. He's pretty ticked about it, because he didn't find out they disabled the copper until after the install.

Monopoly power

[MobyDisk]

This is why the company that provides telephone service should be a separate company from the one that maintains the wires. Same with power. Same with cable.

Re:

[Overzeetop]

That would require the politicians to grow a backbone, and simply won't happen. But yes, physical plant should be maintained by an entirely separate entity - ideally a semi-governmental one, though one with tight regulatory and price control would be acceptable (think of your water and sewer service as a good example).

Of course, if that were the case you might argue that satellites should be the same. Then again, if we had public physical plants, we probably wouldn't need satellite to have competition!

Re:

[mpapet]

Your proposal starts out innocently enough, but doesn't stay that way. You see, as long as humans are involved they will find a way to abuse the system to their exclusive benefit and your detriment..

Not for me

[joe_cot]

They left my copper in, because it was too difficult to remove. However, even when he was trying to do so , I was well aware he was going to remove the copper.

I generally stick around when contractors are rewiring my house, but I suppose if you're not one of those people, it may come as a surprise. It's probably one of those things on the checklist of stuff to mention, and it doesn't happen sometimes. I've had friends get fiber, be told they're removing the copper, asked them to not remove it, and there were no problems.

Also, I had a bird's nest of copper in my house. I got FiOS so my phone and internet would be over a clear digital connection, and it hasn't gone down since the day it went in (early this summer). I could care less about the speed.

Re:

[StikyPad]

I could care less about the speed.

Mind if I piggyback then?

Re:Not for me

[jez9999]

They left my copper in, because it was too difficult to remove.

Was that before or after you smacked him over the head with a torque wrench?

Congress should be assured

[User 956]

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.

In congress' opinion, this is a non-issue, as long as Verizon leaves the tubes intact.

Are they cutting it at the demarcation point?

[johnny cashed]

Or further up the line? Because the Telco is responsible up to the demarcation point, after which, it is the customer's wiring. Which side are they cutting? How significant is this cutting? Whole sections, or just a snip here to isolate the premise wiring in preparation of new equipment installation?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

They cut up to the demarcation point.
And install a new Fibre-Cu interface.
They also put an 8hr battery backup (for power outage) in your garage.

The real reason...

[Cryophallion]

The sad part is that they are only doing this for one reason:

Scrap copper money.

In a world where a company will do anything to keep wall street and its investors happy, they have decided to make money off the scrap copper now that they are going fiber optic.

Actually, they are now looking into scrap fiber optic for the next generation.

Plausibly Deniable

[mpapet]

If this is happening on a wide scale, then is it a crime? Seriously.

Whomever is parading in front of whatever subcommittee can plausibly deny it, so a slap on the wrist is the maximum penalty. Copper is still cut. The worst thing that could ever happen is an over-eager schmuck will "fall on the sword" and lose his job.

Based on my friend who performs fiber installs to the home for the local telco, It's more or less outside the scope of the job order. Is he the kind of guy that would just leave the copper

Last spring?

[Spazmania]

spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service

Last spring? I had FiOS installed in early to mid 2005 and the installer asked to remove my copper. At the time I hadn't yet cancelled my T1. But for that I've no doubt he'd have removed it.

For Slashdot's 10th anniversary...

[jez9999]

... they've introduced a new rule.

As long [slashdot.org] as [slashdot.org] you link [slashdot.org] previous articles once [slashdot.org] or twice [slashdot.org] in the summary, it's fine to post dupes!

rural phone service subsidies

[fred fleenblat]

Wasn't the installation of some of the copper phone wiring subsidized, especially in rural areas? If so, it seems like VZ owes the subsidy back.

You can't get FiOS in Silicon Valley

[MichaelCrawford]

here it is fourteen years after the web appeared, and the heart of American high-tech doesn't have fiber service to its residents.

I know this because I was trying to get fiber, then found a huge long thread on Usenet as to why there's no fiber in Sunnyvale, where I live and work: basically the telcos are trying to squeeze all the money they can out of old infrastructure, without investing in new.

This left me with cable and DSL. I don't want Comcast cable internet because they filter BitTorrent. I operate a torrent tracker for legal music downloads [oggfrog.com], so I need to use BitTorrent just to check that my tracker and seed are up.

DSL seemed to out as well because I'm over three miles from the phone office. I was very surprised that something hadn't already been done to make DSL available to silicon valley residents. I'm sure there are ways they could extend the range of DSL in an affordable way.

Finally I found Stephouse [stephouse.com] which, through COVAD, offers IDSL. That's DSL over ISDN, and I'm just within range. It's what I have now.

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

Same here. I'm in the heart of Silicon Valley, and I'm 15000 feet from the nearest CO. The end result is that the best DSL connection I can get from anybody outside of Ma Bell... I mean, ATT, is a 1.5 Mbit connection scaled down (yes, scaled down) to 768 kbits. At least upload is still at 368 kbits.

Verizon BLOWS

[sneakyimp]

Anyone who doesn't think this is a crime is a moron. *We* paid for this indirectly by subsidizing telco monopolies with our tax dollars. Also, isn't Verizon the company that has tried to stop the 700MHZ auction through legal auction? They are bending over backwards to try and eliminate competition. It's painfully obvious and it really pisses me off. As for that right-wing troll who complains about Markey being a socialist, I wish I could put him in a factory before the Sherman Act of 1890. I bet we wouldn't hear him complaining about socialist tendencies then. Furthermore, is it really 'anti-business' if the government is trying to encourage *competition* ? Think about it moron. What you really should be complaining about is Verizon and their ilk taking money from the cookie jar that is the Universal Service Fund which is *supposed* to guarantee service to rural areas - $4B out of our pockets *every year*. Have you ever tried using your cell phone in a remote area? Do you think you can get high-speed internet in Bald Knob, Arkansas? I seriously doubt it. Futhermore, Verizon won the $10B Federal IWN contract *and* wants to get more government money from the USF for the 700MHZ spectrum. Their gall knows no bounds. If you are a true republican you should be complaining about all this pork and the pig that is Verizon. Quadraginta, *please* STFU!

I've had FIOS and FIOS TV for a while... They ASK

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

They do not just rip out your copper. They ask if you want to keep it or not. Yes they generally default to deactivating the copper lines and cutting them, but it was quite common on broadbandreports.com to hear of many folks who said, they were asked, or they simply said to the installer to leave it.

Having had both Covad and Cavalier....

[gatkinso]

....Covad DSL and Cavalier for both Phone and DSL, I can truthfully say that Verizon is doing folks a favor.

I know this is not the point, but there it is.

It gets even worse

[TheMeld]

My downstairs neighbor had FIOS put in. In addition to disconnecting the neighbor's copper all the way to the pole, the wonderfully helpful FIOS installer:

• Cut the copper line where it entered my building
  
• Filled the hole in the wall with silicone goo (preventing rewiring of the copper)
  
• Disconnected the copper all the way up to the pole
  
• Changed/disconnected my copper connection at the CO
  
• Plugged the FIOS unit in the basement into an outlet that is on my electric meter
  

It took me 3 weeks of fighting with Verizon (who insisted on taking 2 days to make a service appointment window, and insisted that they be 8a-7p) and my DSL provider (who was horribly frustrated by their inability to get Verizon to simply run a clean *bleeping* loop) to get things back up and running.

Not here

[s2jcpete]

I had fios installed 2 months ago in Richmond, VA. I read the original article on slashdot, and asked the fios tech about cutting the copper. He said they didn't do that because there was a 30 day cancel policy and it would be to expensive to come back out. I still have a copper phone line, and fios at the same time. It causes issues for my billing though because they are "mixed media" and I don't get a bundle package.

FUD

[dreamchaser]

When I got my FIOS installed late last year they asked me if I wanted to move my phone from copper to fiber. I said 'no' and they said 'ok'. Maybe they are doing this in some or many cases, but it certainly isn't a formal policy because they haven't done it to anyone on my street. Yes, my evidence is anecdotal, but so is this story.

Re:

[pembo13]

Guess you didn't bother to read the argument put forth in the summary.

Re:Only on slashdot

[chill]

Copper infrastructure was mostly paid for by government granted monopolies. In return, it was a tariffed service that the telcos had to lease to anyone, in a non-discriminatory way.

Yes, they had to lease to their competitors. That was the price of the gov't granting them a monopoly.

Fiber is paid for by the telcos, not the gov't so is not a tariffed service. While Verizon MUST lease copper to competitors, it isn't compelled to lease fiber access. Verizon cutting the copper is effectively cutting off any competition that was not a Baby Bell in a past life.

No, they can't just reconnect it. The copper is cut on BOTH ends -- telco CO and house. Feel free to reconnect one end, but they aren't required to let you hook it back up in their CO.

The only reason Verizon and AT&T and the others can afford to pay to lay the fiber is the wealth that was created by their guaranteed monopoly.

Mod parent up

[CallFinalClass]

I'm outta mod points... just when I need them...

Re:

[Red Flayer]

I've got mod points, but already posted in the thread... shucks.

Re:

[Psyberian]

All this is well and good. But for the thousands of CLECs, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, they are out of luck. What Verizon and other incumbent carriers need is to be forced, because otherwise they won't, to sell dark fiber like they had to sell unbundled copper loops. Without this unbundled copper there would be no speakeasy or other non-bell dsl carriers.

Some Ideas are Worth Keeping, Some Not.

[Erris]

Fiber == Future. Copper == Past. This is the idea of capitalism, we want an even playing field for companies so that they can edge out the competition with better prices/ideas. Verizon is doing that, and quiet well.

If things really were free, you would be right. They are not and you are selling yourself out. It was a sin for government to grant Ma Bell a monopoly. To undo that sin, the public servitude must be liberated and the Bell holdings must be dissolved. The other answer is to have a completely public network that everyone can use. Any combination of the two will favor one company over the others and this is why US networks have gone from world supremacy to third rate status. Verizon is doing what they are doing so that others won't be able to serve you. When they are finished robbing you of choice they will take your freedom.

Re:

[chill]

It is cost prohibitive. You claim that their customers would be loyal for years and years, but it would be trivial for Verizon to say "Three months free for anyone who switches from Covad!" and crush them.

The only reason Verizon and AT&T can afford it is because of the decades spent as a government granted monopolist and the wealth that generated. They only want to prevent competition from following the path they themselves trod.

Re:Wait, I'm confused -- who started the mess?

[gurps_npc]

Yeah, you ARE confused. Verizon often did not lay the coper lines, Ma Bell did. Oh yeah, and Ma Bell (or Verizon later) was granted a MONOPOLY and made a huge amount of cash on it. In exchange they were told, you have to let other people rent those lines. It was part of the Deal. Oh, and also don't forget that when they installed the copper in the first place they often charged the home owner to do it. As in, I paid to put this stuff in, I will need it later, so how dare you rip it out So yeah, they are RIPPING US OFF. They are in effect paying their employees money to prevent them from having to fulfill their legal obligations to RENT (as in they get PAID for it) the copper. Totally illegal, totally a waste of cash and totally unethical. But you go on and and complaing about how what they are doing is 'ok' cause they own the copper.

For the same reason....

[NeutronCowboy]

... that we don't have multiple companies creating their own parallel toll-roads: it's a horribly inefficient use of a limited resource (space). And just like toll-roads, the initial investment is high and pays off best when there is no competition. The first one to gather the resources to build the first road/connection gets to enjoy advantages that anyone coming after them won't have, such as an existing revenue stream, sticky customers, mind-share, being the standard, etc.

Re:

[Jimmy_B]

<blockquote>What I want to know is why Covad can't run their own lines to your home themselves.</blockquote>
Because it is illegal for them to do so. Running cables requires either permission from every person whose property the cables cross (impossible to get because there are so many) or permission from the city or town (impossible because of Verizon lobbying).

Contracts ...

[tinkerghost]

What I want to know is why Covad can't run their own lines to your home themselves.

Contracts and space. There is only so much space on the public utility right of way, and between the cable, telco, and power services, it's pretty much used. Right now, there are places in MA where the FIOS lines are being attached to extensions over the pole, and techs getting electricuted because of it.

As for the contracts, the only way to be profitable is to play a numbers game - it takes an average of 3-6 months to bre

Re:Yawn

[chill]

Verizon's telco predecessors made that capital investment with gov't guaranteed monopolies. In short, it really ISN'T Verizon's copper, it is copper paid for by taxes and a gov't granted monopoly. It is national infrastructure.

Re:

[falconwolf]

It's Verizon's copper. They can do anything they damn well please with the stuff. They're not "preventing" competitors from competing -- said competitors can always make the same capital investment Verizon (or rather its predecessor telcos) did and lay copper down the street.

No, a competitor can't simply lay down more copper. In most places the incumbent has exclusive access to use the Right of Way [wikipedia.org] for a given purpose. In the case of the telcos, only the incumbent has the right to have telephone landli

Re:

[homer_ca]

It's the same in California. When I signed up earlier this year, it even said in the install FAQs on the website that they'll cut the copper. It doesn't say that any more, though.

The only reason they didn't was because I don't have POTS and only ordered Internet. I'm also in a small apartment building, and they ran fiber just to my unit because I'm the only one in the building who ordered FIOS.

Re:cry me a river

[TechyImmigrant]

As someone who has FIOS, the difference in service is clear. With copper I was free to choose my ISP. I chose a very, very good local mom and pop ISP. With Fiber I'm stuck with Verizon.

The technology may be more modern, but the terms of service are in the stoneage. It would be better in the long run if the terms of service were forcibly opened, as with copper, since they don't appear willing to open them voluntarily.

This is something of a reversal of history though. Verizon didn't deploy the stuff until they got a waiver of the copper rules requiring they open them to other ISPs. They were active in closing the terms of service and the government went right along with them.

Bastards.

Re:

[Twanfox]

Governments are as governments are. So they agreed to Verizon's request now, but what's to say that once Verizon makes this investment that they won't turn around and demand similar clauses to lease to competitors once the infrastructure is in place? Assuming that is what the game is, it's a perfect play of a business.

Of course, it could be an elitest establishment buying into some sham, failing to recall the public good as their motivation. Somehow, I bet the latter. (sigh)