12 ms·

Towns want Verizon investigated for abandoning networks through neglect

119 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

paulddraper 11y ago
“The failure of Verizon to comply with its obligations… to provide fiber optic service throughout the State of New Jersey,” What causes this obligation?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sbov 11y ago
  Telecoms oftentimes make deals with the government - in exchange for some sort of advantage, they agree to provide a certain level of service. Linked from the article: Verizon predecessor New Jersey Bell agreed to the statewide broadband buildout in a 1993 agreement with the state. In exchange for a different form of price regulation that would allow the company to make more money, "Verizon agreed to upgrade its network to provide broadband to every Verizon New Jersey business and residential customer, school, and library for 100 percent of its service territory," according to the state's Division of Rate Counsel. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/verizon-led-massive-astroturf-campaign-to-end-nj-broadband-obligation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/verizon-led-massi...
- nonameface 11y ago
  From the Article: "Verizon predecessor New Jersey Bell committed to a statewide broadband buildout in a 1993 agreement with state authorities in exchange for a price regulation overhaul that the telco requested." I assume part of the takeover/merger that happened also merged the previous responsibilities.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    One thing to consider is it is unlikely that a 1993 agreement included a provision for a fiber to residential home requirement. It's probably a requirement for building fiber to commercial or government locations if a customer is willing to pay. Stuff that Telecom's do, it's just very expensive.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      People knew what fiber was in 1993 and that it would be important.
      - hga 11y ago
        Sprint made it an integral part of their long distance adverting in the mid-80s: http://www.retroist.com/2014/11/18/sprints-pin-drop-commercial/ http://www.retroist.com/2014/11/18/sprints-pin-drop-commerci... They also counter advertised against MCI, founded as Microwave Communications, Inc., on the basis of their using fiber and MCI still using a lot of microwave. From http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/sprint-corporation-history/ http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/sprint-corp... E.g.: "In a spirited demonstration of the obsolescence of the microwave networks operated by AT&T and MCI, US Sprint blew up one of the last of its own microwave towers in February 1988." I remember seeing a print add at the time with a picture of the controlled demolition in progress.
      - rhino369 11y ago
        Sure. Fiber was already in widespread use. But the local telecom that became Verizon wouldn't be dumb enough to promise fiber-to-the-house in 1993. I'm willing to bet 50 bucks, the so called expert is misinterpreting the contract or statements by Verizon.
        ascagnel_ 11y ago
        I would agree; however, Verizon has reneged on this agreement a few times. There are several "donut" towns in New Jersey where Verizon was explicitly mandated to serve FTTH but never bothered to (and seem to have been all but forgotten by local lawmakers).
- hguant 11y ago
  In the US, many telecoms operate as a legal monopoly. In exchange for a more or lesscaptive market, telecoms are legally obligated to maintain certain levels of service, among other things - such as rolling out upgrades. This is supposed to provide a higher level of service to the consumer/citizen of the area that makes the agreement, while also meaning telecoms don't waste their massive upfront costs by having no customers. It's supposed to provide the same impetus to improve service as competition. In practice, you get this kind of nonsense.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    It's not quite so simple. The whole point of the 1996 Telecom Act was to get rid of the legal monopolies and get the government out of the business of regulating them. What we have now are incumbents not monopolists. However, in a low-margin industry (Verizon's wireline operating margin is 2-5%) with enormous capital costs, that's kind of a theoretical distinction.
    - empath75 11y ago
      ILEC's still have a monopoly on copper runs in most jurisdictions afaik.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        They own the copper runs. But if you want to compete with them by building your own infrastructure you're allowed to do that. In most places, it's the power companies that own the utility lines, not the telcos. The problem is it's not worth anybody's while to do it to earn 3-5% return.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        A monopoly doesn't require that other people be legally prohibited from competing (if they are, that's a granted-by-law monopoly), it requires that you have sufficient dominance in some market as to exercise pricing power within that market.
- patsplat 11y ago
  Don't know the actual contracts here but the notion that a telecom firm has obligations to a government body is hardly surprising. Telecom providers work with government bodies to place and access poles via eminent domain. Even with cellphones similar considerations exist for the placement of towers. Providers can work directly with private landowners but performing all such negotiations individually is not feasible. Thus in exchange for the State of New Jersey supporting Verizon there are complimentary obligations for Verizon in return.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
For reference, a simple search for "Verizon" on ArsTechnica yields many similar articles. On Verizon failing to meet its obligations to a city: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/verizon-ordered-to-finish-fiber-build-that-it-promised-but-didnt-deliver/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/verizon-ordered-to-f... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/22-years-after-verizon-fiber-promise-millions-have-only-dsl-or-wireless/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/22-years-after-veriz... On Verizon letting their copper landline decay: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/why-verizon-is-trying-very-hard-to-force-fiber-on-its-customers/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/why-ve... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/verizon-let-us-install-fiber-or-well-shut-off-your-phone-service/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/verizon-let-us-insta... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/verizon-union-seeks-government-investigation-into-network-deterioration/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/verizon-union-see... I really hate that they're the best service in my area, because I think they're scum. But then, I think all the major telcos are scum.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > But then, I think all the major telcos are scum. The solution is decentralization through mesh networks.
  - meesterdude 11y ago
    or we could you know, just have many ISP's instead of just a few big ones. Not that i'm against a different topology, but breaking them up is easier to ask for / implement.
    - bluedino 11y ago
      Telco was no better when there were a bunch of baby bells
      - empath75 11y ago
        the baby bells were all monopolies, though.
bovermyer 11y ago
Remind me, why we don't just nationalize Verizon and the other telecom companies? Serious question.
- nugget 11y ago
  Free market competition is usually the best solution to problems like this. Google and others are on the horizon offering better connectivity already. If Verizon doesn't fix its problems then they will start to lose customers which is the ultimate market pressure. While Government-led solutions often seem superior in theory, they rarely work out that way in real life. Government's most effective role, in my opinion, is to create a regulatory environment that encourages consumer transparency, corporate accountability and free market competition. One example of this is what is happening in the health care market (intentionally or not) with the move to high deductible health care plans. These plans incentivize consumers to individually comparison shop fee-for-service medical services for the first time. There is no reason to pay $1,500 for an MRI when there is another place across town willing to do it for $500. This type of mass optimization on a micro economic scale will likely result in better access to services at lower price points than, for example, the Government (CMS) negotiating a universal rate card with low, fixed copays for all patients, all providers, and all services.
  - pil4rin 11y ago
    Yeah, except many (most in my area) healthcare providers do not have fixed rates for service, and prices that are offered are often just estimates, with no real recourse if the estimate is off by a wide margin. My wife had elective surgery- I had a high deductible plan at the time with an HSA account. When we asked what the total cost would be, the quote was ~$1100. The total bills that came to us were well over three times that. There is no real recourse for this, we wrote letters, called governing agencies in our area and were nearly sent to collections before I just paid for it. Free market capitalism is far from what we have in almost every service-based industry in my experience, and companies fight tooth and nail to ensure it stays that way.
    - 11y ago
sevensor 11y ago
We have the same problem with Verizon in my Pennsylvania town. The copper wire is in such bad shape that it barely works for voice. We tried to use DSL, but our connection dropped whenever it rained. A technician told us it might be months before they could get a truck out. Customer service told us there was nothing wrong with our service. So we swallowed our pride and went back to Comcast, which chortled and said "we knew you'd come crawling back" while twirling its moustache.
- jwn 11y ago
  Which town are you in? As it happens I own houses in both rural Northeast PA and South Jersey. My Jersey house must be one of the lucky ones, because I've had FIOS there since about 2009. I can see why the towns are upset, they were promised fiber and now Verizon is bullshitting them with broadband cellular. As for my PA house. I had asked a tech a few years ago when FIOS would be available here, and his response was "never". I didn't take him at his word, but I'm still getting weekly mailings from Verizon for their 'high speed DSL'.
  - GabrielF00 11y ago
    My understanding is that Verizon decided about five years ago not to commit to any new FIOS buildout. All they've been doing since then is finishing what they already committed to. So the tech was probably right.
    - sevensor 11y ago
      Ah, but it's not fiber we're talking about, but copper. As far as I can tell, they're years behind on preventative maintenance and unwilling to repair their infrastructure unless there's an outage and they are legally compelled to do so. Edit: I see you were responding to the immediate parent, not me. Oops.
  - sevensor 11y ago
    State College -- we were never promised fiber, but the copper infrastructure is being allowed to rot nonetheless. For another PA data point, my in-laws have a house in Sullivan County where they have passable DSL with Frontier. Verizon is not available there at all.
rhino369 11y ago
Now that people aren't forced to use Verizon's network for telecom service, Verizon shouldn't have to maintain the networks any longer. Half of people don't have a landline--growing each year. Among those, many get their service via cable companies or VOIP. In 10 years there might not be any need for a functional landline telephone system. And since the cost of such a system is mostly fixed, not variable, the less people use it, the more it costs per customer. Which only drives the cost up. Only a fool would spend good money updating this stuff.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Also, in NJ, verizon has an unusual incentive to decrease market share. Whichever company has the majority (more than 50%) market share in a town pays an additional tax to maintain infrastructure. If you drop below 50%, you don't have to pay the tax anymore.
  - gist 11y ago
    Interesting I wonder who compiles that data exactly? Also what this means is that if you are already clearly over 50% or clearly under 50% your behavior would be predictable and you might consider increasing market share.
- jwn 11y ago
  The towns aren't necessarily demanding copper upgrades. They were promised fiber and now Verizon is trying to placate them with cellular.
- saulrh 11y ago
  That'd be fine if this was just voice. Unfortunately, they're also failing to maintain landline internet, which is a much bigger deal. You can't do your homework on a phone. You can't download updates over a phone's internet connection. You can't run a game console over a phone's internet. You can't get print forms or paperwork with a phone. It's not just internet access that's a requirement - it's usable internet access, and phone internet is not incredibly usable. Tethering is an option, but it often costs something like $30 a month, and even then phone plans, even the $70-a-month 'unlimited' ones, start hitting caps at 5gb or 10gb. What the fuck can you do with 5gb? You can wipe that out with software updates alone. Offering cellular is unacceptable. If they can't put in fiber, they need to maintain the copper. (source: comcast took three weeks to fix the internet in our apartment before we just terminated our plan and switched to another provider - lucky use we weren't fucked into only having a single option - spent a week trying to survive on phone internet before putting in the work to do tethering)
zw123456 11y ago
One thing that I never see discussed whenever this type of topic comes up is how badly managed the traditional telecoms have been. My first job out of college back in the 80's was with Bell Labs and I worked on a task force to look at how to replace all the old electro-mechanical switching offices. The team I was on came up with the idea to use fiber optics to centralize to one or two main CO's for each state. Traditionally, the way the telecoms set up their networks is they have a CO (Central Office) in each neighborhood, the reason was because of the old analog technology from the early 1900's, the signal simply could not travel very far so there needed to be a station within 5 to 10 miles from the customer. Of course there is no need for that with fiber. Our plan would have saved billions, but they instead decided to just over lash the fiber to existing copper runs and replace the electro-mechanical switch with a digital office. It was a huge blunder in my view. If you look at which companies make money and which loose money in telecom, you can easily see the relationship, cable co's, CLEC's, mobile operators all use the centralized approach, one or two main offices per state and fiber to backhaul to those offices, the losers, the legacy telco's have 100's of CO's for each offices of the profitable companies. It is obvious to see in operational costs but they are completely blind to it. I would put this into the category of "Inventor's dilemma" type of problem.
- Aloha 11y ago
  There was a significant amount of flattening in the initial digital rollout, between SLC-96 and 5ESS remotes (GTD5 and DMS all have similar constructs) they did eliminate some very very small suburban offices. But there was not really another round of office consolidations after the last big round of mergers - with the replacement of the legacy TDM hardware with newer soft switches however this is happening. This article however touches on an issue unique to Verizon, which is they're letting their copper plant rot in the field, as a way to force customers off of it (the railroads did much the same thing with passenger service in the early 50's) when Frontier has bought a former GTE/Verizon area, they usually have to hire a bunch more in the way of field techs, and spend millions on OSP upgrades and repairs - to the point that additional FiOS expansion in the immediate future is unfeasible due to cost. The future is going to have a mix of wireline and wireless - and some of it will still be copper, I still believe the best architecture for the future is FTTN (fiber to the node) with a node every block (or 3-400 yards) allowing for sub 1000 ft loops. I still think this offers the best price/performance ratio.
Shivetya 11y ago
I am not trying to defend Verizon, but the goal of the FCC is to move off of copper lines. However the rules state that phone companies cannot do that if any service is interrupted which also apparently means if a customer doesn't want to move off of copper they don't have too. So which is it? Do we move people to fiber? There are many who hold on to copper lines because they have a central power source whereas fiber does not. My other concern is, why should they pick up the tab for maintaining connections on an obsolete system if the new one will serve the area?
- hapless 11y ago
  The problem is that they refuse to build out fiber in areas where they are unlikely to sell a lot of high-dollar, high-margin TV packages. In rural and low-income areas, Verizon wants to let the old copper infrastructure rot, but they are uninterested in building out a real replacement. Instead, they push low-margin customers to grossly inferior wireless services.
  - massysett 11y ago
    4G LTE that works without a single wire in your home, with no truck rolls, and throughout the USA is hardly "grossly inferior". Not preferred by some, definitely...but not grossly inferior.
    - kristopolous 11y ago
      4g lte isn't in those areas either.
    - chiph 11y ago
      4G LTE isn't a valid choice for anyone who wants low-latency (online gamers, and it doesn't even have to be a "twitch" game), or anyone who balks at $205/month for 30gb (AT&T price)
      - profinger 11y ago
        Yes! Datacapped services are not a viable option. It'd be great to move to cell service as my phone gets faster download speeds than the fastest broadband available locally but I'd be capped at 10gb of data or be paying some outrageous amount for more and that's like 3-4 movies worth of space... ridiculous.
doctorshady 11y ago
Just remember that if you're ever in the position of having to press Verizon up against the wall, they're legally obligated to fix the outside plant, whether copper or fiber. They're also obligated to provide you with non-VoIP (marketed under things like the Verizon Freedom package) phone service over fiber. The service is implemented much better, and since it's legally phone service, is obligated to meet a certain quality standard and be fixed in a certain length of time if it breaks. In any case, it really does piss me off to see how far the telecom market has sunk. A lot of these companies have never gotten over the monopoly mindset, and really do nothing other than hold themselves back in every way possible. It's times like these, I kinda want to go buy one of these markets Verizon has effectively abandoned, and put the whole industry to shame.
- mcherm 11y ago
  > I kinda want to go buy one of these markets Verizon has effectively abandoned, and put the whole industry to shame. The Google Fiber experiment has proven that if you put the whole (US) industry to shame in an incredibly public way that gets covered multiple times by just about every news outlet in the country... that it will have no effect at all on the entrenched players (except perhaps causing them to lower their prices in the areas you serve in order, I suppose, to harm your income).
- vitd 11y ago
  Please do! I'm on FiOS right now, and apparently Verizon doesn't want to have to maintain it, so they've sold it to Frontier who I've read are terrible and also won't do anything new with it. I would love to have a non-TimeWarner/AT&T option that's as fast as FiOS.

119 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

“The failure of Verizon to comply with its obligations… to provide fiber optic service throughout the State of New Jersey,” What causes this obligation?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sbov 11y ago
Telecoms oftentimes make deals with the government - in exchange for some sort of advantage, they agree to provide a certain level of service. Linked from the article: Verizon predecessor New Jersey Bell agreed to the statewide broadband buildout in a 1993 agreement with the state. In exchange for a different form of price regulation that would allow the company to make more money, "Verizon agreed to upgrade its network to provide broadband to every Verizon New Jersey business and residential customer, school, and library for 100 percent of its service territory," according to the state's Division of Rate Counsel. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/verizon-led-massive-astroturf-campaign-to-end-nj-broadband-obligation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/verizon-led-massi...
nonameface 11y ago
From the Article: "Verizon predecessor New Jersey Bell committed to a statewide broadband buildout in a 1993 agreement with state authorities in exchange for a price regulation overhaul that the telco requested." I assume part of the takeover/merger that happened also merged the previous responsibilities.
- rhino369 11y ago
  One thing to consider is it is unlikely that a 1993 agreement included a provision for a fiber to residential home requirement. It's probably a requirement for building fiber to commercial or government locations if a customer is willing to pay. Stuff that Telecom's do, it's just very expensive.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    People knew what fiber was in 1993 and that it would be important.
    - hga 11y ago
      Sprint made it an integral part of their long distance adverting in the mid-80s: http://www.retroist.com/2014/11/18/sprints-pin-drop-commercial/ http://www.retroist.com/2014/11/18/sprints-pin-drop-commerci... They also counter advertised against MCI, founded as Microwave Communications, Inc., on the basis of their using fiber and MCI still using a lot of microwave. From http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/sprint-corporation-history/ http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/sprint-corp... E.g.: "In a spirited demonstration of the obsolescence of the microwave networks operated by AT&T and MCI, US Sprint blew up one of the last of its own microwave towers in February 1988." I remember seeing a print add at the time with a picture of the controlled demolition in progress.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      Sure. Fiber was already in widespread use. But the local telecom that became Verizon wouldn't be dumb enough to promise fiber-to-the-house in 1993. I'm willing to bet 50 bucks, the so called expert is misinterpreting the contract or statements by Verizon.
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        I would agree; however, Verizon has reneged on this agreement a few times. There are several "donut" towns in New Jersey where Verizon was explicitly mandated to serve FTTH but never bothered to (and seem to have been all but forgotten by local lawmakers).
hguant 11y ago
In the US, many telecoms operate as a legal monopoly. In exchange for a more or lesscaptive market, telecoms are legally obligated to maintain certain levels of service, among other things - such as rolling out upgrades. This is supposed to provide a higher level of service to the consumer/citizen of the area that makes the agreement, while also meaning telecoms don't waste their massive upfront costs by having no customers. It's supposed to provide the same impetus to improve service as competition. In practice, you get this kind of nonsense.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's not quite so simple. The whole point of the 1996 Telecom Act was to get rid of the legal monopolies and get the government out of the business of regulating them. What we have now are incumbents not monopolists. However, in a low-margin industry (Verizon's wireline operating margin is 2-5%) with enormous capital costs, that's kind of a theoretical distinction.
  - empath75 11y ago
    ILEC's still have a monopoly on copper runs in most jurisdictions afaik.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      They own the copper runs. But if you want to compete with them by building your own infrastructure you're allowed to do that. In most places, it's the power companies that own the utility lines, not the telcos. The problem is it's not worth anybody's while to do it to earn 3-5% return.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        A monopoly doesn't require that other people be legally prohibited from competing (if they are, that's a granted-by-law monopoly), it requires that you have sufficient dominance in some market as to exercise pricing power within that market.
patsplat 11y ago
Don't know the actual contracts here but the notion that a telecom firm has obligations to a government body is hardly surprising. Telecom providers work with government bodies to place and access poles via eminent domain. Even with cellphones similar considerations exist for the placement of towers. Providers can work directly with private landowners but performing all such negotiations individually is not feasible. Thus in exchange for the State of New Jersey supporting Verizon there are complimentary obligations for Verizon in return.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

For reference, a simple search for "Verizon" on ArsTechnica yields many similar articles. On Verizon failing to meet its obligations to a city: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/verizon-ordered-to-finish-fiber-build-that-it-promised-but-didnt-deliver/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/verizon-ordered-to-f... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/22-years-after-verizon-fiber-promise-millions-have-only-dsl-or-wireless/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/22-years-after-veriz... On Verizon letting their copper landline decay: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/why-verizon-is-trying-very-hard-to-force-fiber-on-its-customers/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/why-ve... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/verizon-let-us-install-fiber-or-well-shut-off-your-phone-service/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/verizon-let-us-insta... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/verizon-union-seeks-government-investigation-into-network-deterioration/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/verizon-union-see... I really hate that they're the best service in my area, because I think they're scum. But then, I think all the major telcos are scum.

iamsohungry 11y ago
> But then, I think all the major telcos are scum. The solution is decentralization through mesh networks.
- meesterdude 11y ago
  or we could you know, just have many ISP's instead of just a few big ones. Not that i'm against a different topology, but breaking them up is easier to ask for / implement.
  - bluedino 11y ago
    Telco was no better when there were a bunch of baby bells
    - empath75 11y ago
      the baby bells were all monopolies, though.

bovermyer 11y ago

Remind me, why we don't just nationalize Verizon and the other telecom companies? Serious question.

nugget 11y ago
Free market competition is usually the best solution to problems like this. Google and others are on the horizon offering better connectivity already. If Verizon doesn't fix its problems then they will start to lose customers which is the ultimate market pressure. While Government-led solutions often seem superior in theory, they rarely work out that way in real life. Government's most effective role, in my opinion, is to create a regulatory environment that encourages consumer transparency, corporate accountability and free market competition. One example of this is what is happening in the health care market (intentionally or not) with the move to high deductible health care plans. These plans incentivize consumers to individually comparison shop fee-for-service medical services for the first time. There is no reason to pay $1,500 for an MRI when there is another place across town willing to do it for $500. This type of mass optimization on a micro economic scale will likely result in better access to services at lower price points than, for example, the Government (CMS) negotiating a universal rate card with low, fixed copays for all patients, all providers, and all services.
- pil4rin 11y ago
  Yeah, except many (most in my area) healthcare providers do not have fixed rates for service, and prices that are offered are often just estimates, with no real recourse if the estimate is off by a wide margin. My wife had elective surgery- I had a high deductible plan at the time with an HSA account. When we asked what the total cost would be, the quote was ~$1100. The total bills that came to us were well over three times that. There is no real recourse for this, we wrote letters, called governing agencies in our area and were nearly sent to collections before I just paid for it. Free market capitalism is far from what we have in almost every service-based industry in my experience, and companies fight tooth and nail to ensure it stays that way.
  - 11y ago

sevensor 11y ago

We have the same problem with Verizon in my Pennsylvania town. The copper wire is in such bad shape that it barely works for voice. We tried to use DSL, but our connection dropped whenever it rained. A technician told us it might be months before they could get a truck out. Customer service told us there was nothing wrong with our service. So we swallowed our pride and went back to Comcast, which chortled and said "we knew you'd come crawling back" while twirling its moustache.

jwn 11y ago
Which town are you in? As it happens I own houses in both rural Northeast PA and South Jersey. My Jersey house must be one of the lucky ones, because I've had FIOS there since about 2009. I can see why the towns are upset, they were promised fiber and now Verizon is bullshitting them with broadband cellular. As for my PA house. I had asked a tech a few years ago when FIOS would be available here, and his response was "never". I didn't take him at his word, but I'm still getting weekly mailings from Verizon for their 'high speed DSL'.
- GabrielF00 11y ago
  My understanding is that Verizon decided about five years ago not to commit to any new FIOS buildout. All they've been doing since then is finishing what they already committed to. So the tech was probably right.
  - sevensor 11y ago
    Ah, but it's not fiber we're talking about, but copper. As far as I can tell, they're years behind on preventative maintenance and unwilling to repair their infrastructure unless there's an outage and they are legally compelled to do so. Edit: I see you were responding to the immediate parent, not me. Oops.
- sevensor 11y ago
  State College -- we were never promised fiber, but the copper infrastructure is being allowed to rot nonetheless. For another PA data point, my in-laws have a house in Sullivan County where they have passable DSL with Frontier. Verizon is not available there at all.

rhino369 11y ago

Now that people aren't forced to use Verizon's network for telecom service, Verizon shouldn't have to maintain the networks any longer. Half of people don't have a landline--growing each year. Among those, many get their service via cable companies or VOIP. In 10 years there might not be any need for a functional landline telephone system. And since the cost of such a system is mostly fixed, not variable, the less people use it, the more it costs per customer. Which only drives the cost up. Only a fool would spend good money updating this stuff.

tedunangst 11y ago
Also, in NJ, verizon has an unusual incentive to decrease market share. Whichever company has the majority (more than 50%) market share in a town pays an additional tax to maintain infrastructure. If you drop below 50%, you don't have to pay the tax anymore.
- gist 11y ago
  Interesting I wonder who compiles that data exactly? Also what this means is that if you are already clearly over 50% or clearly under 50% your behavior would be predictable and you might consider increasing market share.
jwn 11y ago
The towns aren't necessarily demanding copper upgrades. They were promised fiber and now Verizon is trying to placate them with cellular.
saulrh 11y ago
That'd be fine if this was just voice. Unfortunately, they're also failing to maintain landline internet, which is a much bigger deal. You can't do your homework on a phone. You can't download updates over a phone's internet connection. You can't run a game console over a phone's internet. You can't get print forms or paperwork with a phone. It's not just internet access that's a requirement - it's usable internet access, and phone internet is not incredibly usable. Tethering is an option, but it often costs something like $30 a month, and even then phone plans, even the $70-a-month 'unlimited' ones, start hitting caps at 5gb or 10gb. What the fuck can you do with 5gb? You can wipe that out with software updates alone. Offering cellular is unacceptable. If they can't put in fiber, they need to maintain the copper. (source: comcast took three weeks to fix the internet in our apartment before we just terminated our plan and switched to another provider - lucky use we weren't fucked into only having a single option - spent a week trying to survive on phone internet before putting in the work to do tethering)

zw123456 11y ago

One thing that I never see discussed whenever this type of topic comes up is how badly managed the traditional telecoms have been. My first job out of college back in the 80's was with Bell Labs and I worked on a task force to look at how to replace all the old electro-mechanical switching offices. The team I was on came up with the idea to use fiber optics to centralize to one or two main CO's for each state. Traditionally, the way the telecoms set up their networks is they have a CO (Central Office) in each neighborhood, the reason was because of the old analog technology from the early 1900's, the signal simply could not travel very far so there needed to be a station within 5 to 10 miles from the customer. Of course there is no need for that with fiber. Our plan would have saved billions, but they instead decided to just over lash the fiber to existing copper runs and replace the electro-mechanical switch with a digital office. It was a huge blunder in my view. If you look at which companies make money and which loose money in telecom, you can easily see the relationship, cable co's, CLEC's, mobile operators all use the centralized approach, one or two main offices per state and fiber to backhaul to those offices, the losers, the legacy telco's have 100's of CO's for each offices of the profitable companies. It is obvious to see in operational costs but they are completely blind to it. I would put this into the category of "Inventor's dilemma" type of problem.

Aloha 11y ago
There was a significant amount of flattening in the initial digital rollout, between SLC-96 and 5ESS remotes (GTD5 and DMS all have similar constructs) they did eliminate some very very small suburban offices. But there was not really another round of office consolidations after the last big round of mergers - with the replacement of the legacy TDM hardware with newer soft switches however this is happening. This article however touches on an issue unique to Verizon, which is they're letting their copper plant rot in the field, as a way to force customers off of it (the railroads did much the same thing with passenger service in the early 50's) when Frontier has bought a former GTE/Verizon area, they usually have to hire a bunch more in the way of field techs, and spend millions on OSP upgrades and repairs - to the point that additional FiOS expansion in the immediate future is unfeasible due to cost. The future is going to have a mix of wireline and wireless - and some of it will still be copper, I still believe the best architecture for the future is FTTN (fiber to the node) with a node every block (or 3-400 yards) allowing for sub 1000 ft loops. I still think this offers the best price/performance ratio.

Shivetya 11y ago

I am not trying to defend Verizon, but the goal of the FCC is to move off of copper lines. However the rules state that phone companies cannot do that if any service is interrupted which also apparently means if a customer doesn't want to move off of copper they don't have too. So which is it? Do we move people to fiber? There are many who hold on to copper lines because they have a central power source whereas fiber does not. My other concern is, why should they pick up the tab for maintaining connections on an obsolete system if the new one will serve the area?

hapless 11y ago
The problem is that they refuse to build out fiber in areas where they are unlikely to sell a lot of high-dollar, high-margin TV packages. In rural and low-income areas, Verizon wants to let the old copper infrastructure rot, but they are uninterested in building out a real replacement. Instead, they push low-margin customers to grossly inferior wireless services.
- massysett 11y ago
  4G LTE that works without a single wire in your home, with no truck rolls, and throughout the USA is hardly "grossly inferior". Not preferred by some, definitely...but not grossly inferior.
  - kristopolous 11y ago
    4g lte isn't in those areas either.
  - chiph 11y ago
    4G LTE isn't a valid choice for anyone who wants low-latency (online gamers, and it doesn't even have to be a "twitch" game), or anyone who balks at $205/month for 30gb (AT&T price)
    - profinger 11y ago
      Yes! Datacapped services are not a viable option. It'd be great to move to cell service as my phone gets faster download speeds than the fastest broadband available locally but I'd be capped at 10gb of data or be paying some outrageous amount for more and that's like 3-4 movies worth of space... ridiculous.

doctorshady 11y ago

Just remember that if you're ever in the position of having to press Verizon up against the wall, they're legally obligated to fix the outside plant, whether copper or fiber. They're also obligated to provide you with non-VoIP (marketed under things like the Verizon Freedom package) phone service over fiber. The service is implemented much better, and since it's legally phone service, is obligated to meet a certain quality standard and be fixed in a certain length of time if it breaks. In any case, it really does piss me off to see how far the telecom market has sunk. A lot of these companies have never gotten over the monopoly mindset, and really do nothing other than hold themselves back in every way possible. It's times like these, I kinda want to go buy one of these markets Verizon has effectively abandoned, and put the whole industry to shame.

mcherm 11y ago
> I kinda want to go buy one of these markets Verizon has effectively abandoned, and put the whole industry to shame. The Google Fiber experiment has proven that if you put the whole (US) industry to shame in an incredibly public way that gets covered multiple times by just about every news outlet in the country... that it will have no effect at all on the entrenched players (except perhaps causing them to lower their prices in the areas you serve in order, I suppose, to harm your income).
vitd 11y ago
Please do! I'm on FiOS right now, and apparently Verizon doesn't want to have to maintain it, so they've sold it to Frontier who I've read are terrible and also won't do anything new with it. I would love to have a non-TimeWarner/AT&T option that's as fast as FiOS.