Slashdot Log In
Verizon Copper Cutoff Traps Customers
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 08, 2007 01:12 PM
from the my-way-or-the-dirt-path dept.
from the my-way-or-the-dirt-path dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Verizon Accused of Slighting Copper Infrastructure 249 comments
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.
[+]
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?"
[+]
Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers 329 comments
The Byelorrusian Spamtrap writes "Wired Magazine's made its position clear on the state of play in America's cellular industry, delivering a long, satisfying screed on why all of us should stop complaining and do something about it. 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with. But today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express: they're TV stations, internet access, emergency 911 and news networks all rolled into one. WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?'"
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.
Not true (Score:5, Funny)
That's not entirely correct. We tried to call them, but couldn't get through. Not our fault.
Duhh (Score:4, Insightful)
From a sales point of view, why would you want to tell someone "Oh by the way, there's no turning back, if you decide you don't like FIOS, you're fucked because we're going to cut the old line as soon as you switch" ? Alot of people are going to be disturbed by that & it could be the deal breaker in alot of cases.
From a Verision point of view [font size="0.002"]maintaining both networks must be pretty expensive[/font].
It's like polar bears going to a new iceburg when they realize the one they're on is about to rollover. Some polar bears are going to have a shitty time making the swim to the new iceburg, but the quicker everyone gets over there it better.
It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact for the past several years, Verizon has been charging all other CLECs (read: competitors to Verizon DSL) for last-mile piggybacking (which they are required by law to offer) even more money than it costs a customer to get Verizon DSL, and of course the only way Verizon DSL can provide such cheap service is by being the singular DSL company in Pittsburgh who is eligible for the cheapest pricing bracket for last-mile piggyback rates.
For example, while Verizon DSL charges $14.99/month for their basic DSL package, Verizon charges some of its competitors $16/month for each DSL customer they have.
This is of course all legal unless you can prove that Verizon and Verizon DSL have consorted for this to be the case. And it is arguably illegal, still, if you can prove that Verizon's piggybacking rates are anti-competitive. But no one seems to be doing anything about this.
Re:It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Informative)
That's complete bull.
Oh, and wholesale Verizon partners were limited to ONLY the 768K/128K or 1.5Mbps/128Kbps speeds. Talk about a hard sell...
And now that the telcos have been deregulated again, Verizon has grandfathered most if not all of their wholesale offerings and has choked the market off even more.
I don't like at&t any better than Verizon, but at least their DSL wholesale pricing is a lot more reasonable.
Re:It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
When it was installed at my house, they made us all aware that the copper lines were being disconnected (but left intact).
In a power outage, there is a battery backup that keeps the fiber gateway alive for a few hours. Any outage that lasts more than a few hours usually results in a failure of the copper infrastructure as well. The passive nature of the FiOS network would indicate that it's *less* likely to outages and failures. The pole-top components for routing and switching perform their functions utilizing optics, and require no power -- it's quite a cool system from an engineering standpoint.
The amount of FUD floating around this article is absurd. I'm no fan of huge corporations, but this is a clear-cut case of a monolithic corporation using its large size to actually implement an infrastructure that benefits consumers and reduces costs (and passes some of those reductions off to the consumer). It's a hell of a lot more than the cable company's ever done for us.
Re:It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Informative)
Funny. A couple of years ago, we had a wicked ice storm that knocked out power for a sizeable area for close to a week or more. In the case of the road I'm on, the power was out for 5 days.
The phones still worked the whole time.
Re:It might be legal but.... (Score:5, Informative)
nonsense. POTS over copper is centrally powered with sizable banks of batteries and 2 diesel generators the size of my car for backup power.
in the event of a total power grid failure, we have enough fuel in the tanks under the main office to keep the system running for roughly 2 weeks (and if we can't get more fuel in that time, the shit has really hit the fan). the batteries alone would power the system for about 8 hours, but the generator starts up automatically if the power is out for more than 20 minutes.
It's POTS part of Universal Service? (Score:5, Interesting)
As part of the "deal" the phone companies made with the government a long time ago I thought POTS was one of the "Universal Services", which has a federal tariffed rate. My feeble understanding is that obligated the phone company to provide that service to anyone at the federal rate.
So, once the copper is cut, shouldn't you be able to order that service, and make the reinstall cost be on Verizon's nickel? If enough people did that, might they not find it unprofitable to cut the copper?
What about future tenants? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just got FIOS (Score:5, Informative)
1. They didn't cut the existing copper to the house. The installer said they don't do that if there is more then one family or if the customer asks them not to. But even if they had I could still get phone only service over fiber for the same price as over copper. It doesn't matter much as we don't have a LAN lane, only cell phones.
2. They install a battery backup with the fiber that will keep it alive for 6+ hours if the power goes out. But honestly, most people have cordless phones and other phones that require 120v AC so they lose phone when the power goes out anyway. True, if you power goes out frequently and you need to use the phone then FIOS isn't for you. But most places like that are rural areas where FIOS isn't being installed anyway.
3. The worst part of FIOS is that we now need to pay for the 15 watts the transformer uses. This really does piss me off but even with the $30 a year it will cost me it is still a much better deal then Comcast. Oh, and I can still use Comcast for Internet/TV/Phone if I so I have not lost my choice of connections. I would need two separate coax runs if I wanted both at the same time though. The installer asked me if I wanted him to run new coax in the house which I declined.
I'm not overly impressed with the actual speed of FIOS now that we have it but it still is a better deal then Comcast. When Comcast becomes cheaper, I'll probably switch again. We have more competition now then we ever had in the past and it is saving us money.
Re:I just got FIOS (Score:5, Informative)
I have a two-family rental property. One family recently had Verizon FIOS installed. The other family is cell-phone only (single guy) with four idle copper lines.
Verizon cut all copper to the house.
The 1st unit now has Verizon fiber and lost its copper connection.
The 2nd unit lost its copper, and now has no connection to the street.
Just a replay of their optic cable ploy (Score:5, Interesting)
When communities started deploying their own fiber optic cable systems the communications industry was alarmed, even though they had plenty of opportunity to begin laying FOC themselves. They went to congress (lobbied and bribed congressmen) and got a law which forbid local governments from "competing" with free enterprise and paid the companies an advanced "reinbursement" to lay the FOC themselves. The communications companies, including Verizon, took the money but never laid the FOC. By ignoring the companies lack of compliance, even though they took the cash to do so, Congress has given defacto approval to the theft.
What does one expect when "campaign contributions" can be so easily converted to personal use?
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
you have not much imagination then (Score:5, Insightful)
The copper built this nations telecommunications and cutting it is at a minimum consumer unfriendly and is destroying quite decent backup that is already there and works. They could like, just leave it the fuck alone when they install the fiber in case the customer wants to use it for something else or have a backup connection, perhaps from another company. And if verizon doesn't want that copper, it should be taken away from them with no recompensation whatsoever, just like any other abandoned property on the street, and given to someone else who would actually use it after being held and auctioned off by the local marshals or sheriffs, just like they do with abandoned cars or abandoned buildings.
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck selling your house to someone who just wants plain old phone service, unless Verizon's going to put the copper back in or charge normal phone rates for people not using the internet stuff.
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC regulations require them to lease the copper to other broadband providers. They have no such obligation with the fiber. Once the copper is gone, you're locked into Verizon broadband (unless you switch to cable). At that point, especially for those households without cable available, Verizon has no reason not to jack up your prices and/or provide shitty service.
It's the same thing we always see from the telcos, and which explains the terrible Internet, cellular, and POTS service we have in the U.S. Instead of competing, they run whining to either Congress or the regulators for special protection. Because there is no way for consumers to counteract well-funded political interests, Congress gives them whatever they want, and they don't have to compete anymore.
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
The next tenants/home owners who move in. While a nerd/geek may be happy paying tens of dollars each month for cable/broadband/telephone service, the next tenants may resent being forced to pay for a whole load of services they don't want. This might even affect the rental/property price of the location in question.
Having freedom of choice is far better than having no choice at all.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a deregulated, private network -- buy your own land to lay your own lines using only your own money. Verizon is doing none of those things.
Re:Well they told me when I signed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say Verizon decides to raise the rates on the FiOS service by 800%. What are you going to do then?
Your first instinct would be to switch providers, but you can't do that because you don't have infrastructure the competitors can use going to your house.
The million dollar question was asked earlier: is Verizon obligated to wholesale access to the fiber to competitors? If the answer to that question is yes, then this is much ado about nothing... go buy a battery and plug your FiOS stuff into it. If the answer is no, then this is a new monopoly forming and it's pretty underhanded (and typical) for Verizon to lock competitors out.
Re:Well they told me when I signed up (Score:5, Insightful)
So 800% is a bit extreme. What about 50% then? Or 25%? Even a moderate increase in the rate will net Verizon significant profit, while not significantly impacting their user base. And, if they don't have to open up to competitors, Verizon can slowly crank up rates, netting huge profits for themselves without spooking the users.
I work for Verizon (Score:5, Interesting)
My foreman told us a month ago to stop taking down the copper just to improve our install times. Maybe at the CEO level there's a big conspiracy to eliminate common carrier lines but the 1st and 2nd level managers certainly don't care about it. And I know for sure the linemen don't.
I know when I install I only remove the copper in a few circumstances:
1. The customer specifically asks me to (usually for aesthetic reasons, they don't care for all the wires running over their lawn).
2. They have underground conduit so I have to use the old copper line to pull the new fiber through it.
3. The drops to their house go through thick foliage and rather than try to weave the fiber through a bazillion branches I'll tape it to the old copper line and just pull it through.
Other than that? Why would I spend 30 minutes cutting the old line, getting dirty gathering it up and then finding a place to dispose of it when I'm all done? I'm not going to do extra work for no reason. Particularly if there's good reason not to do that work. I say just wait for the next hurricane to knock it down for you. Then we can take it away.
Basically I think it's going to go one of two ways in the future.
1. Consumer complaints over price and service will ultimately lead to making the fiber network common carrier in a decade or so.
or
2. WiMAX, BPL, Cable, Cellular and Satellite will provide enough options for consumers that the number of people calling for the fiber to be made common carrier just won't reach a critical mass because most people will be satisfied with the existing communications options.
Your scenario's a little strange. I don't know why those guys would risk losing a new customer over something as silly as that. In the Boston area anyway they seem to bend over backwards to save an install.
Re:double standard, ahoy! (Score:4, Insightful)
With a more competitive marketplace there would be pressure to improve quality, reduce prices, and expand the market.
If Verizon has no competition they charge what they want, provide crappy service, and dont invest in their infrastructure.
MaBell never learns, really.. (Score:5, Interesting)
1996 "Let's make everyone pay each other for calls from their network to another network..." rule to keep CLECs from being a viable business (oh wait dialup ISPs are all inbound calls, D'OH!) followed by the
1999 "The Internet is not the telephone call so we don't have to pay those competitors the BILLIONS of reciprocal compensation for all our customers dialling up to d/l pr0n" rule which made
2004 "Packet based voice not subject to the same regulations as POTS" rule
Which means that now Verizon is rolling out a pure packet switched network that they don't have to share... Oh yeah and practicing a scorched-earth policy it seems.
Missionary position. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you explain the existence of contract lawyers? You know; people highly trained and well paid to spend their days understanding how to read and write small print. --If every working Joe was fully trained in the reading and understanding of deliberately deceptive small print in deliberately confusing contractual agreements, then why, oh, why do we have contract lawyers and schools dedicated to teaching contract lawyers?
Some people who sign contracts are not the same as you; they might be, say for example, overwrought working parents who may not have the same time and ability to focus their attention that you enjoy. Some people didn't have the proper nutrition or the same educational opportunities while growing up that you did, and so have fewer skills with regard to understanding the technical minutia in contractual agreements. Or are you suggesting the people who are not like you should be punished in some kind of 'Survival of the Fittest' line of myopic thinking? Should people who are not the same as you be fed to the sharks? I disagree, especially when 'Fittest' actually means, 'born to parents who happened to grow up in the right place and the right time with the right skin colour.'
I've met sharp-witted poor people who are among some of the hardest working humans on the planet, and I've met dull as doorknob rich people who are not, so 'lazy' and 'unfit' are piss-poor generalizations against people who aren't as advantaged as you. --That's a pre-emptive, "Don't even go there," in case you were wondering.
There is more than one kind of person on this planet; and thank goodness for that! Otherwise we'd have a world filled with tight-ass conservatives. The world would be missing good sex, 95% of the creative arts, spicy food and automobiles which come, "in any colour we want so long as it's black". In other words, the world would run like a Swiss watch, but there would be little appeal in actually being alive there.
Which is to say. . , some people spend their time developing skills other than the understanding of legal fine print and technology. Thank goodness!
Corporations which go to lengths to exploit people, and even create weakness in people which can then later be exploited, should not be held blameless while those they harm are sneered at for not being white and rich and mono-cultured enough.
-FL