3 ms·

> In New York City, the mayor has turned Verizon's FIOS deployment into an economic justice issue and hired a civil rights lawyer: http://www.crainsnewyork.com

> In New York City, the mayor has turned Verizon's FIOS deployment into an economic justice issue and hired a civil rights lawyer: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140... http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140.... I can't speak to the other cities, but please do not cite NYC as an example in your argument. De Blasio is not what's preventing FiOS expantion in NYC - Verizon is[0]. As someone who actually lives in NYC and has tried to get FiOS installed in multiple buildings, there are two problems. One is that buildings have exclusive agreements to provide television service through either Time Warner or Comcast (usually because the superintendant and/or owner gets free cable as a result of this agreement), and that Verizon refuses to provide FiOS Internet unless they can also provide television service. Verizon is fully aware of this problem, and they've framed it in a way that allows them conveniently to point the finger at another entity. Verizon is "trying" to deploy FiOS in New York, but they're not really interested in expanding their coverage. > De Blasio has hired a civil rights lawyer to look into the issue of poor people not being able to afford FIOS! I would say the bottleneck is definitely NYC's government This would only be relevant if the NYC government were the ones actively blocking people who can afford to pay for FiOS from having it installed, but as explained above, that's not the case. (You mentioned this point in another thread, but I responded rather late, so perhaps you didn't see it. In any case, my response is still relevant here. ) [0] This should be evident even from the fact that De Blasio's only been in office for less than 6 months, and it's been years since Verizon made an honest effort to expand FiOS coverage in New York.

rayiner 12y ago
How is that Verizon's fault and not your building's?
- barsonme 12y ago
  > and that Verizon refuses to provide FiOS Internet unless they can also provide television service. It's both. Verison could provide FiOS without television, but they choose not to. Both parties are at fault.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I don't see why Verizon has any obligations to do business on the conditions which Comcast sets. It may very well be that the internet service is a loss leader for their TV service for them (I don't know that for the fact but sounds plausible from your description). They won't change their whole business strategy just because Comcast bribed some superintendent. I'd say in this case it's either the tenants find a way to get out of the vendor lockup, or they get no FiOS. It's not Verizon's fault.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  These agreements (which are common) cover television, not Internet. It's certainly the building's fault as well, but if Verizon really cared about expanding FiOS Internet, they'd agree to provide Internet service to a building even without providing television service[0]. Either way, whoever's fault it is, though, it's certainly not De Blasio's fault (which you asserted in your original post). [0] Which they did do in the early days in some districts out in Long Island, but they stopped this around the same time as they stopped expanding FiOS into new areas.

rayiner 12y ago

How is that Verizon's fault and not your building's?

barsonme 12y ago
> and that Verizon refuses to provide FiOS Internet unless they can also provide television service. It's both. Verison could provide FiOS without television, but they choose not to. Both parties are at fault.
- smsm42 12y ago
  I don't see why Verizon has any obligations to do business on the conditions which Comcast sets. It may very well be that the internet service is a loss leader for their TV service for them (I don't know that for the fact but sounds plausible from your description). They won't change their whole business strategy just because Comcast bribed some superintendent. I'd say in this case it's either the tenants find a way to get out of the vendor lockup, or they get no FiOS. It's not Verizon's fault.
chimeracoder 12y ago
These agreements (which are common) cover television, not Internet. It's certainly the building's fault as well, but if Verizon really cared about expanding FiOS Internet, they'd agree to provide Internet service to a building even without providing television service[0]. Either way, whoever's fault it is, though, it's certainly not De Blasio's fault (which you asserted in your original post). [0] Which they did do in the early days in some districts out in Long Island, but they stopped this around the same time as they stopped expanding FiOS into new areas.