4 ms·

A better analogy would be: you shared a web server with 99 other users, splitting the cost 100 ways. Then the provider installed a new, faster server (with marg

by davmre 12y ago

A better analogy would be: you shared a web server with 99 other users, splitting the cost 100 ways. Then the provider installed a new, faster server (with marginally smaller uptime -- easily worked around by buying a backup battery), to which all 99 of your fellow customers migrated. You refuse to migrate and want to stay on the old server. In a free market, the provider would say something like "that's fine, we'll keep maintaining the old server as long as you're willing to pay the costs", where said costs are now 100x of what they previously were, since you're no longer sharing the upkeep. You could then decide yourself if this were really the best use of your resources. In Verizon's case, though, prices on copper POTS service are regulated and can't be raised to reflect upkeep costs. So when most customers switch to fiber, the money coming in from the few remaining copper customers doesn't actually cover maintenance costs. That means maintenance of the copper network is being subsidized by FiOS customers. Whatever Verizon's other evils (and I agree with you that there are many), a government-mandated transfer of wealth from fiber adopters to copper-clinging Luddites is not good policy.

JohnTHaller 12y ago
That's not a good analogy. Home phone pots is reliable and regulated. VoIP information services are not. I can choose between two bad providers here in NYC (time warner cable and Verizon dsl), both of which suffer from regular outtages, often lasting a day or longer.
- NoPiece 12y ago
  Except that Verizon's phone service over fiber is priced and regulated in exactly the same way as their copper service. It is still effectively the same landline service. Forcing Verizon to maintain copper means slower rollout of fiber and slower internet. It isn't reasonable for people (Ars) to want faster better internet service, and also to complain when copper is removed.
  - selectodude 12y ago
    >Except that Verizon's phone service over fiber is priced Yes. >and regulated in exactly the same way as their copper service Sort of. It's required to support number portability and E911, but there's no uptime requirement. >It is still effectively the same landline service. Also, no. http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/phone/homephone/general+support/fios+voice+service/fvs/121150.htm http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/phone/homephone/g... "Call Restrictions: You cannot receive Collect or third Party Calls, and you cannot place 900 calls using FiOS Digital Voice" "Battery Back Up In case of a power outage, FiOS Digital Voice will operate on battery back up for approximately 8 hours if an active battery is inserted in the Battery Backup Unit" That is not the same quality of service that I expect from my copper POTS service.
  - doctorshady 12y ago
    In theory, sure. You can get POTS service over fiber - and Verizon used to install it all the time, but now they try very aggressively to steer you towards their digital voice product. I'm not in Verizon territory, but I did try ordering the Verizon Freedom Package earlier today from their website (POTS + unlimited LD, an asston of features) just for the purposes of arguing in Manhattan, an area where FiOS service is offered. Nothing I tried would let me order that; I'd always, inevitably be redirected back to the digital voice order page.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    Verizon's POTS over fiber product is nearly impossible to get. It's unavailable online. Calling in they claim they've never heard of it according to multiple people who have tried. It doesn't matter if you force Verizon to maintain copper or not, Verizon cancelled all new FiOS rollouts back in 2010. Unless you're in an area already serviced by FiOS and under an agreement, you won't get fiber from Verizon. Note that they will finish the few bits of neighborhoods where they have an agreement and most of the fiber laid... eventually... unless they decide to renege on their promises, of course. Verizon agreed to set FiOS up for all of NYC by 2014 and has been trying to weasel out of that agreement for over 2 years. My neighborhood has no fiber service yet.
    - NoPiece 12y ago
      It's hard to get except in the exact situation the original article is talking about. They will give you FIOS pots when they are just trying to get rid of copper. They stopped rolling out fiber because they needed to improve adoption in areas where they already deployed. Supporting copper is slowing the whole thing down.
      - JohnTHaller 12y ago
        They stopped the rollout in 2010 and laid the majority of the staff working on it off. Verizon has already stated they have no plan to ever roll out to the remaining areas not already under agreement.
rayiner 12y ago
> Whatever Verizon's other evils (and I agree with you that there are many), a government-mandated transfer of wealth from fiber adopters to copper-clinging Luddites is not good policy. Most of what people perceive as Verizon's evils are the result of government-mandated transfer of wealth.[1] The way most markets work is that new technology is introduced in the premium segment, and trickles down to everyone else once the fixed costs are amortized. In almost every city, Verizon is legally prevented from doing this. If they want to wire up a city with FiOS, they can't start with the rich neighborhoods and expand to poorer neighborhoods as it makes sense to do so. They have to commit to wiring up the whole city in one go. Because that's an unattractive proposition in most places, they've halted new FiOS deployment. The same thing is true of the existing copper network. Many of the places that are currently wired shouldn't be wired. In a free market, they wouldn't be wired. It makes no sense to wire them, for remoteness or density reasons. The reason they're wired is that the government taxed certain of Verizon's customers to subsidize the customers that it doesn't make sense to build out to. [1] I'm not against such programs as a principle, but when you try to implement it "by the back door" instead of through direct subsidy, as the government has done in the telecom sector, you get exactly the sort of dysfunction that we see now.
- mbreese 12y ago
  You're absolutely right. Rural America and poor people shouldn't have access to the internet or phone service. It is a horrible tragedy that we have a universal service fund that helped to give everyone in the country a basic level of service.
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    If we want to give these people/regions services then we should be clear about what we are doing and explicitly subsidize them, and fund it by explicitly taxing others. Instead, these policies implicitly subsidize them by implicitly taxing others.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Why should we subsidize peoples' housing choices? And if we do, we should do it directly, instead of creating a regime that makes it unattractive for companies to invest in telecom infrastructure.

by davmre 12y ago

JohnTHaller 12y ago

That's not a good analogy. Home phone pots is reliable and regulated. VoIP information services are not. I can choose between two bad providers here in NYC (time warner cable and Verizon dsl), both of which suffer from regular outtages, often lasting a day or longer.

NoPiece 12y ago
Except that Verizon's phone service over fiber is priced and regulated in exactly the same way as their copper service. It is still effectively the same landline service. Forcing Verizon to maintain copper means slower rollout of fiber and slower internet. It isn't reasonable for people (Ars) to want faster better internet service, and also to complain when copper is removed.
- selectodude 12y ago
  >Except that Verizon's phone service over fiber is priced Yes. >and regulated in exactly the same way as their copper service Sort of. It's required to support number portability and E911, but there's no uptime requirement. >It is still effectively the same landline service. Also, no. http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/phone/homephone/general+support/fios+voice+service/fvs/121150.htm http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/phone/homephone/g... "Call Restrictions: You cannot receive Collect or third Party Calls, and you cannot place 900 calls using FiOS Digital Voice" "Battery Back Up In case of a power outage, FiOS Digital Voice will operate on battery back up for approximately 8 hours if an active battery is inserted in the Battery Backup Unit" That is not the same quality of service that I expect from my copper POTS service.
- doctorshady 12y ago
  In theory, sure. You can get POTS service over fiber - and Verizon used to install it all the time, but now they try very aggressively to steer you towards their digital voice product. I'm not in Verizon territory, but I did try ordering the Verizon Freedom Package earlier today from their website (POTS + unlimited LD, an asston of features) just for the purposes of arguing in Manhattan, an area where FiOS service is offered. Nothing I tried would let me order that; I'd always, inevitably be redirected back to the digital voice order page.
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  Verizon's POTS over fiber product is nearly impossible to get. It's unavailable online. Calling in they claim they've never heard of it according to multiple people who have tried. It doesn't matter if you force Verizon to maintain copper or not, Verizon cancelled all new FiOS rollouts back in 2010. Unless you're in an area already serviced by FiOS and under an agreement, you won't get fiber from Verizon. Note that they will finish the few bits of neighborhoods where they have an agreement and most of the fiber laid... eventually... unless they decide to renege on their promises, of course. Verizon agreed to set FiOS up for all of NYC by 2014 and has been trying to weasel out of that agreement for over 2 years. My neighborhood has no fiber service yet.
  - NoPiece 12y ago
    It's hard to get except in the exact situation the original article is talking about. They will give you FIOS pots when they are just trying to get rid of copper. They stopped rolling out fiber because they needed to improve adoption in areas where they already deployed. Supporting copper is slowing the whole thing down.
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      They stopped the rollout in 2010 and laid the majority of the staff working on it off. Verizon has already stated they have no plan to ever roll out to the remaining areas not already under agreement.

rayiner 12y ago

> Whatever Verizon's other evils (and I agree with you that there are many), a government-mandated transfer of wealth from fiber adopters to copper-clinging Luddites is not good policy. Most of what people perceive as Verizon's evils are the result of government-mandated transfer of wealth.[1] The way most markets work is that new technology is introduced in the premium segment, and trickles down to everyone else once the fixed costs are amortized. In almost every city, Verizon is legally prevented from doing this. If they want to wire up a city with FiOS, they can't start with the rich neighborhoods and expand to poorer neighborhoods as it makes sense to do so. They have to commit to wiring up the whole city in one go. Because that's an unattractive proposition in most places, they've halted new FiOS deployment. The same thing is true of the existing copper network. Many of the places that are currently wired shouldn't be wired. In a free market, they wouldn't be wired. It makes no sense to wire them, for remoteness or density reasons. The reason they're wired is that the government taxed certain of Verizon's customers to subsidize the customers that it doesn't make sense to build out to. [1] I'm not against such programs as a principle, but when you try to implement it "by the back door" instead of through direct subsidy, as the government has done in the telecom sector, you get exactly the sort of dysfunction that we see now.

mbreese 12y ago
You're absolutely right. Rural America and poor people shouldn't have access to the internet or phone service. It is a horrible tragedy that we have a universal service fund that helped to give everyone in the country a basic level of service.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  If we want to give these people/regions services then we should be clear about what we are doing and explicitly subsidize them, and fund it by explicitly taxing others. Instead, these policies implicitly subsidize them by implicitly taxing others.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Why should we subsidize peoples' housing choices? And if we do, we should do it directly, instead of creating a regime that makes it unattractive for companies to invest in telecom infrastructure.