6 ms·

California consumer groups allow CenturyLink to end dark fiber leasing

115 points by iokevins 9y ago

fapjacks 9y ago
CPUC is absolutely awful. Every time I see the acronym, my spidey sense tingles like crazy that there's some collusion going on behind the scenes. Those people fold in places that are strategically very convenient for the industries. It very much seems like CPUC is in the business of monopoly-building, and I have never seen any evidence to the contrary. Specifically CPUC makes me wish I ran a watchdog and could dump resources into an investigation.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  They were the ones that decided that frontier buying Verizon Fios wouldn't cause any harm to consumers, and what do you think happened... Yeah, lots of complaints about billing mistakes, months of no service, etc.
  - Tostino 9y ago
    Yeah, that was one of the most painful acquisitions for me personally. I went from practically no issues with Fios for years, and at least reasonably responsive service if there was an issue, to literally the worst customer service i've ever dealt with in Frontier. The billing issues... oh the billing issues were terrible. They were charging me more than double for three months, each month i'd call and tell them to fix it and fix the prior months, and I wasn't paying until I saw a fixed statement with the correct amount owed. It didn't get fixed until 4 months in I filed a complaint with the BBB.
    - Applejinx 9y ago
      …which themselves are sketchy, so it stands to reason that any scamsters would be extremely aware of 'em.
  - Viper007Bond 9y ago
    Anecdotal but my switch from Verizon to Frontier was smooth and I've had no major issues with my Frontier FiOS since.
    - CrossWired 9y ago
      Same here. And they sent me an email that I got a free speed upgrade too 75/75 up to 100/100.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    It was a bad transition, but there was no regulatory reason to block it. If Verizon had been trying to sell to Time Warner or Comcast, which would have reduced ISP choice for many people to one provider, then there is a regulatory role.
    - schiffern 9y ago
      You call a "bad transition," but is that just the PR line or has the anti-consumer behavior actually stopped? >there was no regulatory reason to block it That's a problem, no? If protecting consumers from harm isn't a reason that empowers them to block it, the commission is broken. "The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy." http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/
      - WillPostForFood 9y ago
        CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen and they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted. You would be worse off long term stuck with Verizon if they were actively trying to get out of the market. They had already killed all new investment in FIOS years ago.
        schiffern 9y ago
        >CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen Well they could have (I can't believe I have to say this: monopolies are bad, mmkay?), but they've been captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture There's that "transition" line again. Still nothing to back up the idea that it's a temporary situation rather than the "new normal." Or more accurately the "new low." >they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted All? Of course not. But banning ones that create monopolistic / oligopolistic situations in certain markets (the predictable effects of which are higher prices and worse service, including more frequent interruptions of service) is warranted. In a hypothetical universe where all possible mergers would result in monopolies / oligopolies (and are therefore blocked), that's a feature not a bug.
- sergers 9y ago
  They folded for a few non-binding concessions... Crazy
- pishpash 9y ago
  Businesses haven't been sitting on their hands, they've been busy "capturing" regulatory agencies at every level of government via their control of the officials who appoint to them.
pasbesoin 9y ago
Here's the first paragraph. Makes the context and outfall more apparent: If CenturyLink is allowed to buy Level 3, then California will lose a major source of dark fiber. That’s my reading of a settlement agreement between CenturyLink, Level 3 and three of the organisations that challenged the deal at the California Public Utilities Commission. The fourth challenger, the California Emerging Technology Fund, isn’t part of the agreement.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  For those unaware, dark fiber refers to fiber in the ground that was overbuilt by the owning company, in this case Level3. What I don't get is why would someone not want to lease this unused capacity? Is it to squash competition and push up consumer costs?
  - sergers 9y ago
    Yes. That's CenturyLink's business model.
    - hedora 9y ago
      Maybe the CA legislature (or proposition system) can step in. I doubt the feds will do anything these days, but the state government has repeatedly shown a willingness to fill the gap.
  - xadhominemx 9y ago
    That's not what dark fiber is. Dark fiber is dedicated fiber optic strands that are not in use and available to be leased to a customer providing their own optical equipment. Enterprises can outsource management of the capital equipment (wavelengths) or the entire network (e.g. Ethernet). The latter is known is lit services and is much more common than dark fiber.
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Unused ~= overbuilt. The leasing part was implied from the parent post.
vfclists 9y ago
Looks like a classic case of controlled opposition.
zw123456 9y ago
I have often been asked by people what Dark Fiber is, my answer is usually that it is evil fiber. Just kidding. Seriously, dark fiber is quite simply fiber that does not have the usual network equipment attached to it and hence, no lasers are shooting photons through it, thus the term "dark" meaning not being lit by lasers. The largest cost of laying fiber is not in the fiber itself, the glass itself is relatively cheap in comparison to the cost of obtaining the right of way, the labor and so on. Often municipalities, counties, states or whatever charge a fee for these rights of way if the fiber is underground (the most expensive). If they are attaching aerial fiber to existing poles, the pole owners, often power companies, have also paid for the rights of way and further charge a poll attachment fee. Regardless, all the other cost typically far over shadow the cost of the individual strands. Typically a carrier will install a larger fiber count cable since the incremental cost of installing a 144 count fiber rather than a 72 count for example, would probably be relatively minor so why not have a few extras. Most carriers have the choice as to whether or not to sell off (typically using an instrument called an Indefeasible Right to Use, which is sort of like a condo but for fiber, usually long term, 20years). Usually they will sell or trade with other carriers to help offset costs, for example carrier A might trade 4 fibers in San Francisco for 4 fibers in LA for particular routes. In that way they are not so directly aiding a competitor but also gaining routes for themselves. Usually, carriers do not like to sell off DF to customers such as large enterprises because quite simply, those customers would never have to buy anything from them again because they could continuously gain more capacity by placing DWDM equipment on each end (not endlessly of course but for all practical purposes for most customers, endless). That is why most carriers like Century Link or others (especially ILEC's, Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, i.e. the phone company) do not like selling DF. Typically these carriers have purchased a Franchise agreement with cities or whichever authority. These franchise agreements are not cheap (usually 5% of gross or something like that, basically it is like a tax) that gives them in theory access to all rights of way from the controlling body (cable co's do the same thing). Because of that they maintain often a de-facto monopoly or a powerful market position that they do not want jeopardized by the availability of DF which would provide extremely cheap bandwidth. I have often thought that the smart thing for cities to do, if perhaps one were to be able to start from a green field, would be for the city to place telecom conduit up and down every street from the get go and then rent out inner-duct space to carriers. That would make it easier for competitors to access the rights of way without all of the disruptions. But perhaps new mmwave 5G technology will eliminate such concerns eventually (but I am skeptical).

115 points by iokevins 9y ago

CPUC is absolutely awful. Every time I see the acronym, my spidey sense tingles like crazy that there's some collusion going on behind the scenes. Those people fold in places that are strategically very convenient for the industries. It very much seems like CPUC is in the business of monopoly-building, and I have never seen any evidence to the contrary. Specifically CPUC makes me wish I ran a watchdog and could dump resources into an investigation.

dawnerd 9y ago
They were the ones that decided that frontier buying Verizon Fios wouldn't cause any harm to consumers, and what do you think happened... Yeah, lots of complaints about billing mistakes, months of no service, etc.
- Tostino 9y ago
  Yeah, that was one of the most painful acquisitions for me personally. I went from practically no issues with Fios for years, and at least reasonably responsive service if there was an issue, to literally the worst customer service i've ever dealt with in Frontier. The billing issues... oh the billing issues were terrible. They were charging me more than double for three months, each month i'd call and tell them to fix it and fix the prior months, and I wasn't paying until I saw a fixed statement with the correct amount owed. It didn't get fixed until 4 months in I filed a complaint with the BBB.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    …which themselves are sketchy, so it stands to reason that any scamsters would be extremely aware of 'em.
- Viper007Bond 9y ago
  Anecdotal but my switch from Verizon to Frontier was smooth and I've had no major issues with my Frontier FiOS since.
  - CrossWired 9y ago
    Same here. And they sent me an email that I got a free speed upgrade too 75/75 up to 100/100.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  It was a bad transition, but there was no regulatory reason to block it. If Verizon had been trying to sell to Time Warner or Comcast, which would have reduced ISP choice for many people to one provider, then there is a regulatory role.
  - schiffern 9y ago
    You call a "bad transition," but is that just the PR line or has the anti-consumer behavior actually stopped? >there was no regulatory reason to block it That's a problem, no? If protecting consumers from harm isn't a reason that empowers them to block it, the commission is broken. "The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy." http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen and they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted. You would be worse off long term stuck with Verizon if they were actively trying to get out of the market. They had already killed all new investment in FIOS years ago.
      - schiffern 9y ago
        >CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen Well they could have (I can't believe I have to say this: monopolies are bad, mmkay?), but they've been captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture There's that "transition" line again. Still nothing to back up the idea that it's a temporary situation rather than the "new normal." Or more accurately the "new low." >they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted All? Of course not. But banning ones that create monopolistic / oligopolistic situations in certain markets (the predictable effects of which are higher prices and worse service, including more frequent interruptions of service) is warranted. In a hypothetical universe where all possible mergers would result in monopolies / oligopolies (and are therefore blocked), that's a feature not a bug.
sergers 9y ago
They folded for a few non-binding concessions... Crazy
pishpash 9y ago
Businesses haven't been sitting on their hands, they've been busy "capturing" regulatory agencies at every level of government via their control of the officials who appoint to them.

pasbesoin 9y ago

Here's the first paragraph. Makes the context and outfall more apparent: If CenturyLink is allowed to buy Level 3, then California will lose a major source of dark fiber. That’s my reading of a settlement agreement between CenturyLink, Level 3 and three of the organisations that challenged the deal at the California Public Utilities Commission. The fourth challenger, the California Emerging Technology Fund, isn’t part of the agreement.

bluejekyll 9y ago
For those unaware, dark fiber refers to fiber in the ground that was overbuilt by the owning company, in this case Level3. What I don't get is why would someone not want to lease this unused capacity? Is it to squash competition and push up consumer costs?
- sergers 9y ago
  Yes. That's CenturyLink's business model.
  - hedora 9y ago
    Maybe the CA legislature (or proposition system) can step in. I doubt the feds will do anything these days, but the state government has repeatedly shown a willingness to fill the gap.
- xadhominemx 9y ago
  That's not what dark fiber is. Dark fiber is dedicated fiber optic strands that are not in use and available to be leased to a customer providing their own optical equipment. Enterprises can outsource management of the capital equipment (wavelengths) or the entire network (e.g. Ethernet). The latter is known is lit services and is much more common than dark fiber.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    Unused ~= overbuilt. The leasing part was implied from the parent post.

vfclists 9y ago

Looks like a classic case of controlled opposition.

zw123456 9y ago

I have often been asked by people what Dark Fiber is, my answer is usually that it is evil fiber. Just kidding. Seriously, dark fiber is quite simply fiber that does not have the usual network equipment attached to it and hence, no lasers are shooting photons through it, thus the term "dark" meaning not being lit by lasers. The largest cost of laying fiber is not in the fiber itself, the glass itself is relatively cheap in comparison to the cost of obtaining the right of way, the labor and so on. Often municipalities, counties, states or whatever charge a fee for these rights of way if the fiber is underground (the most expensive). If they are attaching aerial fiber to existing poles, the pole owners, often power companies, have also paid for the rights of way and further charge a poll attachment fee. Regardless, all the other cost typically far over shadow the cost of the individual strands. Typically a carrier will install a larger fiber count cable since the incremental cost of installing a 144 count fiber rather than a 72 count for example, would probably be relatively minor so why not have a few extras. Most carriers have the choice as to whether or not to sell off (typically using an instrument called an Indefeasible Right to Use, which is sort of like a condo but for fiber, usually long term, 20years). Usually they will sell or trade with other carriers to help offset costs, for example carrier A might trade 4 fibers in San Francisco for 4 fibers in LA for particular routes. In that way they are not so directly aiding a competitor but also gaining routes for themselves. Usually, carriers do not like to sell off DF to customers such as large enterprises because quite simply, those customers would never have to buy anything from them again because they could continuously gain more capacity by placing DWDM equipment on each end (not endlessly of course but for all practical purposes for most customers, endless). That is why most carriers like Century Link or others (especially ILEC's, Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, i.e. the phone company) do not like selling DF. Typically these carriers have purchased a Franchise agreement with cities or whichever authority. These franchise agreements are not cheap (usually 5% of gross or something like that, basically it is like a tax) that gives them in theory access to all rights of way from the controlling body (cable co's do the same thing). Because of that they maintain often a de-facto monopoly or a powerful market position that they do not want jeopardized by the availability of DF which would provide extremely cheap bandwidth. I have often thought that the smart thing for cities to do, if perhaps one were to be able to start from a green field, would be for the city to place telecom conduit up and down every street from the get go and then rent out inner-duct space to carriers. That would make it easier for competitors to access the rights of way without all of the disruptions. But perhaps new mmwave 5G technology will eliminate such concerns eventually (but I am skeptical).