Verizon Accused of Slighting Copper Infrastructure

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.

I would suspect Verizon normally...

But I suspect unions even more. Most likely, they are concerned about the jobs of their members, who maintain the copper networks.

A union official gave written testimony about the Verizon problems

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...

I am one of many who are not at all happy about the quality, level, and cost of telephony and digital access. I think our government has corrupted itself with the granting and enforcing of monopolies in this area. The access providers are screwing us and w

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

From a few links in the Ars Technica posting of this story, this seems to be essentially correct. The Telecom worker union does copper (and the workflow involves 4 of their workers at different levels to provision/change lines), while the fibre workers, while unionized (apparently), are a different union group, with a different job description/position, and involves less workers for provisioning.

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits

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.

Re:

It is my opinion that unions have lost their purpose. Back before we had labour laws, employers could push unsafe working conditions on people, withhold pay, and fire them without severance. These kinds of things don't happen any more, or when they do, t

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

Yep, reminds me much of ... every frickin' corporate job. The "can't be fired" comes from managers protecting their sycophants (or family, or co-conspirators, etc), and the people who actually do the work are not the one who get rewarded for having done it. (With rare exceptions.)

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.

Try this reality kool-aid for a change... you'll start noticing how much of what you've been told is propaganda in support of the corporate powers-that-be.

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.

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

For me personally, it is a friend whose family was threatened because he didn't use union laborers. After the brick through the window, he relented and hired a waste of life to stand there and do nothing, just so he could say he'd hired union. After that, the threats stopped.

I'm not accusing you of such tactics, but don't deny that unions are full of thugs.

Where the anti-union rhetoric comes from

You're pretty close I'd say, but then miss your own point.

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.
 

Re:Where the anti-union rhetoric comes from

I don't know much about the history of unions nor do I know what kind of tacts they may or may not use on a large scale. I do know that my father was a union carpenter in Boston for many years and he spoke highly of it, and I do know that I currently work in a union job shop that makes aircraft parts (roughly 450 employees).

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

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits, and then the general public getting pissed when unions fight to keep what they have.

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.

anti-union rhetoric

I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits

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?

Re:

Well, having worked with Unions a time or two, the things that irk the living hell out of me about unions are as follows:

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 so

Re:

The Seniority rules (that are now being abused by some) are a response to large corporations arbitrarily 'laying off' anybody even suspected of being a strong union organizer or supporter and/or refusing to give them a raise for years ... etc.

The unions,

fix the old or install the new

Verizon more likely wants to dump the copper and go with FOIS to all.

Re:

"Verizon more likely wants to dump the copper and go with FOIS to all."

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

Re:

I hate Verizon too, but it's really hard to argue with a 30/5 line that costs half as much as the old 5/2 line I was getting from Speakeasy, especially since I actually get most of the 30/5 out of the line. I hate how only Verizon can offer it though, sin

Posting my trouble ticket here

Posting my trouble ticket here where it will be read by verizon tech's quicker than staying on hold with them for the next century.

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.

Valid, I think

Verizon has been granted a monopoly on copper as long as they serve as a common carrier. If they are diverting funds from maintenance of their common carrier network to installation of selectively-installed FIOS, then they are violating common carrier rules.

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

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.

The regulat

Solution: Return to single-provider phone service

This kind of story is all too common lately. Cable companies and the separate telcos often neglect equipment, have lousy customer service and generally suck. It seems like this all started with the deregulation of the telecom market. I would like to see a return to single provider service (i.e. the Bell system.)

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:

• High prices, almost as high as you had under the monopolized system.
  
• Stories like this with a profit-motivated vendor neglecting older equipment because it doesn't generate as much revenue as the new stuff.
  
• Incompetent customer service. The provider might also outsource this function because it isn't a "core competency." Now you have someone halfway around the world who has no clue how to help you.
  
• Service turn-ups measured in months -- I gave up after 3 months and 2 separate attempts to get DSL.
  

Now, think of the stuff we had under the previous system:

• High prices, but you get what you pay for.
  
• A provider who has an enforceable mandate to keep their networks maintained and running.
  
• Reliability -- uptimes of equipment measured in tens of years.
  
• Bell Labs and the like -- There's no way a for-profit company actually wants to support research these days. IBM and Microsoft say they do, but nothing compares to the discoveries Bell Labs made. That was all telecom money.
  

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.

Why maintain the shared copper plant?

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...

There's absolutely no problem with verizon's copper infrastructure. I'm using Verizon right now from our headquarters and we've never had any sorts of prsd0023[(23
(@$!sd2

---- NO SIGNAL ----

Re:Yes

You give customers what they pay for or you don't expand. I have to pay the whole bill, why shouldn't Verizon have to provide me with the full amount of service I pay for?

No

The problem is that they're not just letting copper go by the wayside where they're installing FiOS, they're letting copper go down the tubes (so to speak) everywhere - even where they have no real plans to install fiber. Fiber is expensive and they are cherry picking the hig-density, high disposable income areas. To fund this expansion of service, they are shorting funds to maintain copper to the rest of the area.

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.

Re:A union official...

Now there's a knowledgable, unbiased, accurate source. Are contract talks coming up soon?

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.