Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Verizon, Copper, Fiber, and the Truth

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 02, 2007 03:55 PM
from the got-a-story-to-tell dept.
Communications Businesses
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?"
+ -
story

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 Cutoff Traps Customers 269 comments
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.
by
Submission: Is VZ telling the truth about FIOS hookups? by wb8foz (164205)
[+] Entertainment: 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?'"
[+] Ask Slashdot: Verizon, Fiber Or Die? 291 comments
dynamator writes "I live about 550 meters from my Verizon central office. I pay for their higher-tier 'Power Plan' DSL service, which boasts 3 Mbps down and 758 Kbsp up. For the past year, I've enjoyed excellent performance on this line. However, this past month Verizon has been hooking up my neighbors with FiOS, their new fiber-to-the-home system, and guess what, my connection speed and dependability have taken a nosedive. What can I do to build the case that this is really happening? Will anyone, least of all Verizon, care? Are they making me a fiber offer I can't refuse?" We discussed a few times last year what Verizon may be up to.
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.

Verizon, Copper, Fiber, and the Truth 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Not really surprised (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ryukotsusei (1164453) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @03:58PM (#20828855)
    So they're blocking off potential competitors? At least it's spurring the move to Fiber Optic...

    • Re:Not really surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:02PM (#20828943) Journal
      That's my question. Can't other phone companies use the fiber line into your house as well? I thought all fiber/copper went back to the same switching station anyway.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bigdady92 (635263)
        No they can't. Verizon laid the line, it's not a public utility like cable at all. It's VZ property, there can be no other competitors. AT&T won't let VZ near their fibre and vice versa.

        • Re:Not really surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2007, @05:44PM (#20830451)
          They laid the cable as well, but decades ago. The difference is: the copper was installed under "rate of return" regulation; aka "the more money you waste; the more money you get from the subscribers..."

          That's not true for the glass, as the Bells [in most states] got freed from RoR several years ago.

          So the copper is essentially yours & mine, held in trust by Ma's stepkids. Can we sue them for neglect, and get custody, al-la K-Fed?

      • Re:Not really surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tinkerghost (944862) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:24PM (#20829323) Homepage

        Fiber is getting to play by new rules. Old rules say that if you are going to use the public right-of-way, you have to share the lines. The new rules say - gimmey-da-money-and-shut-up.

        The old Telco laws were expressly written to handle the copper POTS lines since there was no other service. Now that fiber is being run in, the telco's are saying that since the law says POTS, it's POTS & POTS only - and spending billions squashing attempts at updating the law while they're at it.

        As a side note, I have a friend who works for Verizon & per the techs, they only yank the copper if it makes fishing the fiber easier - otherwise it's too much work & trouble.

        • Re:Not really surprised (Score:4, Interesting)

          by BLKMGK (34057) <morejunk4me@NoSpAM.hotmail.com> on Wednesday October 03 2007, @07:44AM (#20835565) Homepage
          I have a friend who works for Verizon too. His perspective, in Baltimore, is quite interesting. Seems they have STOPPED "maintaining" the copper. They do service calls when it breaks but no more tree cutting or other routine maintenance. He says some areas are so bad that as fast as they fix one issue another crops up and the waiting list for service calls is long enough that it can take a week or more to get a tech out. The way he explains it is that as soon as they get fiber out they are going to rent or sell the copper albatross and let the next guy in line deal with the mess that has come from the lack of maintenance.

          As for pulling copper.... Their peeve where he is at is the cable companies. Cable companies come in with VOIP and use "their" boxes on the side of the house to junction the inside copper. So their management has been threatening to begin removing these junction boxes from the sides of the houses and remove the copper from the pole too. This means that if someone switches from VOIP to them again they incur additional charges. He claims that the boxes on the sides of the house belong to Verizon and that their management says this is kosher to do. Oh and they are also upset that the cable companies aren't doing things like inside wiring service calls. He says that when an inside issue occurs the cable companies tell the customer they cannot help and so customers are witching back to Verizon in order to get these problems resolved. The Verizon employees are apparently upset that they are somehow held to different standards than the VOIP companies etc.

          He started telling me about this over a year ago. I've only just recently seen articles in the Wash. Post about local communities in Northern VA waking up to the fact that Verizon has stopped maintaining the copper infrastructure they were entrusted with and that the tax payers partially funded - I couldn't help but snicker when Verizon denied this activity.

          As for FIOS. They are forcing the techs to work OT and drive quite a bit more than they used to as copper techs so many refuse to switch. They also monitor the fiber techs a good bit more with GPS etc. so no more parking lot naps (I'm serious). FIOS is taking awhile to roll out because it is a lot of work for an install - triple play takes 8 hours and they often have to replace ALL cable in the house....

          • Re:Not really surprised (Score:4, Informative)

            by teebob21 (947095) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @08:10PM (#20831887) Journal

            I wonder if a land owner could make a case to receive rent from Verizon of putting private property (fiber) into the public right-of-way access across the his land. I'd imagine that many lawyers would jump at the chance to try for a suit that would be that widespread and lucrative.

            Not any lawyers worth their salt, I'd imagine. Public easements are declared explicitly in property deeds and titles. They are a known burden (legal term, not in the typical sense of the word) when the owner bought the property, and any objections must be made and satisfied prior to sale. Now, if Verizon or Quest or Comcast were to install a feeder line or a customer drop through my property and outside the easement without permission, you would have the makings of a civil suit. However, rather than pay me rent into perpetuity, the operators would likely relocate the line into the easement, and settle for the reasonable cost of damage to the lawn.

            Any further legal action (on the basis of an easement violation) would be frivolous and likely get dismissed from court.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's a political decision not a technical constraint. The Powell FCC ruled that they do not need to share the unregulated fiber; the 96 Telecom Act required they share the copper.

    • Re:Not really surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CloneBot (554877) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:05PM (#20829011) Homepage
      Fiber be damned, bring me lower prices. Competition between competitors is guaranteed to bring down prices. The fact that I have no choice in carriers is the one reason I have to pay $30-40 for a decent connection. Leaving down a cable would definetly lead to a competitive market.

      And DSL be damned. When the DSL is sluggish like in my neighborhood, it is not an option.

      • Re:Not really surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:12PM (#20829145) Homepage Journal
        And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property? It wasn't Verizon who made a regulation making them the sole provider -- it was your local and State government. Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

        • Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

          Color me cynical, but what do you suggest when the whole election process has been subverted to the point that only pro-business candidates ever seem to get far enough to be voted upon? Seriously, when was the last time a truly progressive (and I don't mean "liberal", I mean "working for positive change

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Red Flayer (890720)

          And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property?

          Regardless of the law, there is a market disincentive to run cables that duplicate those run by someone else. Because of the high infrastructure cost (cabling especially) phone and cable (or fiber) internet are natural monopolies that reduce competitive forces.
          This is the entire reason for granting certain rights to companies like Verizon in exchange for demanding certain things, such as allowing competitors to lease spa

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MightyYar (622222)
          I think that it's okay to be mad at Verizon, who seem to be in bed with whatever candidate you try to vote for.

        • natural monoply (Score:5, Informative)

          by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['aho' in gap]> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @05:20PM (#20830145)

          And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property? It wasn't Verizon who made a regulation making them the sole provider -- it was your local and State government. Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.

          Actually the best way to deal with a Natural Monopoly [wikipedia.org] like landlines [wikipedia.org] is to separate the infrastructure from services. Maybe instead of a business owning the infrastructure local governments, nonprofits, or business can own it but then they are required to allow open access. This is what's being done in northeastern Utah with a Broadband Utopia [ieee.org]. A group of communities in the area built the infrastructure and allows anyone to offer any services it is capable of. It could be internet access, phone service, "cable" tv, or any combination (Triple Play". How would you like a 30 megabit per second, mps, connection? That's what's available now however speeds could get to 100mps.

        • Re:Not really surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bigpat (158134) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @07:58PM (#20831795) Homepage

          Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.
          Thanks, but I think I am right to be mad at both Verizon and my government. After all it was Verizon that has been screaming that it can't(won't) offer its customers the services they want unless they are give legal monopoly to do it. And because my elected representatives sacrificed long term consumer interests for a short term political benefit, I am mad at them too.

            • Re:Not really surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Belacgod (1103921) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @06:37PM (#20831011)
              The winner-takes-all congressional election system, and the committee system in Congress, ensures that voting for a third party will never be as effective as working within the locally-dominant party to bend it to your ends. The former also leads both parties into a race to the middle, which leaves no political space for a third party (this is just the Median Voter Theorem).

              Bipartisan legislative rules, by which Congress is run, are largely deals between the two major parties at the expense of any potential third one. Even campaign finance reform's major effect is to make it harder to break out into the public consciousness, which redounds to the benefit of existing party organizations.

              The two-party system is enshrined in no law, but the structure of the system makes it certain that we end up with that.

            • Are you sure? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:43PM (#20829603) Journal
              You would think that wires run to the closest exchange, but that is not always the case. I saw a case at USWest (LONG ago), where the closest exchange was across the street, but because it was added later, our wires ran several miles up the road.

            • infrasrtructure (Score:4, Insightful)

              by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['aho' in gap]> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @09:04PM (#20832273)

              I'd be the first to recognize that the history of the telco industry is insanely complicated, but the solution is to find a way to divide things up that takes both the private and public investments in the infrastructure

              Oh, I agree. As I said many tymes I think ownership of some infrastructure should be separate from the services that it provides. For instance I think it might be better for a community to build and own the infrastructure but allow open access for any services the infrastructure can provide. Take cable, a nonprofit, for profit, or the city owns the cable but then it allows different companies to offer cable tv, internet access, phone service, or a Triple Play with all three. I would be able to go to one company for tv, another for phone service, and a third for net access.

  • Happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shimmer (3036) <brianberns@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:00PM (#20828901) Homepage Journal
    When I switched from cable internet to FiOS earlier this year I was told that had to permanently cut the copper wire to my house. So I now have fiber phone service. Works fine, except for the short delay that always occurs between picking up the phone and using it. They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.

    • Happened to Me Too! (Score:5, Informative)

      by queenb**ch (446380) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:15PM (#20829209) Homepage Journal
      We had FIOSS put in because the 7 MB/sec line was faster and cheaper than the T-1. They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore. It sounded suspicious to me, but I stood in what was then my front yard and watched them do it.

      2 cents,

      Queen B.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by tlhIngan (30335)

          They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore.

          I hope you got a rebate for the exchange of the copper on your next bill. :)

          For anyone else, when this happens, tell them to leave the copper with you, so YOU can recycle it for a buck or two. :)

          Except if it's on their side of the demarc box, it's their copper. If it

      • Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Funny)

        by steve6534 (809539) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:10PM (#20829099) Homepage
        Because glass doesn't conduct electricity as well as copper :-)

      • Re:Happened to me (Score:4, Informative)

        by Shimmer (3036) <brianberns@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:10PM (#20829117) Homepage Journal
        I assume you're joking, but in case you're not: The phone company has a separate power source that operates even when the consumer power lines are down. Sending this electricity through copper lines to operate household phones works fine. But glass fiber is not quite as electrically conductive.

        • Re:Happened to me (Score:4, Informative)

          by ivan256 (17499) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:57PM (#20829805)
          The other part of that story is that the the phone cables are the lowest on the poles, so something hitting the lines has to take out the high-voltage power lines, the lower voltage power lines, and the cable TV lines before the phone service is knocked out. If something takes out the whole pole, your phone goes out too, even though the telco's CO has a big battery/generator to backup the phone power.

  • All that need be done... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by packetmon (977047) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:02PM (#20828947) Homepage
    All someone would need to do to validate these claims would be to bring in a competitor and have them try to offer services through said copper. It would be hearsay to make a statement without something other than a "word of mouth" to back up a claim. Doing so - bringing in an alternative provider - provides irrefutable proof. However being crafty I can think of an instance where someone @ Verizon can make an argument charging that the copper coming into the home was causing some form of crosstalk which caused attenuation issues and required the copper being "disabled". Note the intentional use of "disabled" as opposed to "cut". I personally could see some twobit Verizon shlum doing something stupid on their own accord. "If we cut the copper John we never have to worry about losing our job!"

  • Verizon disabling copper? (Score:5, Funny)

    by eniac42 (1144799) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:02PM (#20828955) Journal
    Nope, my pennies still seem to work..

  • New twist on RTFA... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Otter (3800) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:03PM (#20828959) Journal
    Ummm, maybe it would have made sense to hold off on this story until it's found to be true, instead of telling us that "sources report" something that's not in the linked article? Far be it from me to doubt Alexander Graham Cracker's "sources", but just on principle...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oahazmatt (868057)
      When I have a friend who actually works for Verizon and claims that this happened, I tend to believe it. He's pretty ticked about it, because he didn't find out they disabled the copper until after the install.

  • Monopoly power (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:04PM (#20828977) Homepage
    This is why the company that provides telephone service should be a separate company from the one that maintains the wires. Same with power. Same with cable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511)
      That would require the politicians to grow a backbone, and simply won't happen. But yes, physical plant should be maintained by an entirely separate entity - ideally a semi-governmental one, though one with tight regulatory and price control would be acceptable (think of your water and sewer service as a good example).

      Of course, if that were the case you might argue that satellites should be the same. Then again, if we had public physical plants, we probably wouldn't need satellite to have competition!

  • Not for me (Score:5, Informative)

    by joe_cot (1011355) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:05PM (#20829003) Homepage
    They left my copper in, because it was too difficult to remove. However, even when he was trying to do so , I was well aware he was going to remove the copper.

    I generally stick around when contractors are rewiring my house, but I suppose if you're not one of those people, it may come as a surprise. It's probably one of those things on the checklist of stuff to mention, and it doesn't happen sometimes. I've had friends get fiber, be told they're removing the copper, asked them to not remove it, and there were no problems.

    Also, I had a bird's nest of copper in my house. I got FiOS so my phone and internet would be over a clear digital connection, and it hasn't gone down since the day it went in (early this summer). I could care less about the speed.

  • Congress should be assured (Score:3, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:07PM (#20829069) Homepage
    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.

    In congress' opinion, this is a non-issue, as long as Verizon leaves the tubes intact.

  • Are they cutting it at the demarcation point? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johnny cashed (590023) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:11PM (#20829123) Homepage
    Or further up the line? Because the Telco is responsible up to the demarcation point, after which, it is the customer's wiring. Which side are they cutting? How significant is this cutting? Whole sections, or just a snip here to isolate the premise wiring in preparation of new equipment installation?

  • The real reason... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cryophallion (1129715) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:13PM (#20829171)
    The sad part is that they are only doing this for one reason:

    Scrap copper money.

    In a world where a company will do anything to keep wall street and its investors happy, they have decided to make money off the scrap copper now that they are going fiber optic.

    Actually, they are now looking into scrap fiber optic for the next generation.

  • Last spring? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:36PM (#20829487) Homepage
    spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service

    Last spring? I had FiOS installed in early to mid 2005 and the installer asked to remove my copper. At the time I hadn't yet cancelled my T1. But for that I've no doubt he'd have removed it.

  • You can't get FiOS in Silicon Valley (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:59PM (#20829833) Homepage Journal
    here it is fourteen years after the web appeared, and the heart of American high-tech doesn't have fiber service to its residents.

    I know this because I was trying to get fiber, then found a huge long thread on Usenet as to why there's no fiber in Sunnyvale, where I live and work: basically the telcos are trying to squeeze all the money they can out of old infrastructure, without investing in new.

    This left me with cable and DSL. I don't want Comcast cable internet because they filter BitTorrent. I operate a torrent tracker for legal music downloads [oggfrog.com], so I need to use BitTorrent just to check that my tracker and seed are up.

    DSL seemed to out as well because I'm over three miles from the phone office. I was very surprised that something hadn't already been done to make DSL available to silicon valley residents. I'm sure there are ways they could extend the range of DSL in an affordable way.

    Finally I found Stephouse [stephouse.com] which, through COVAD, offers IDSL. That's DSL over ISDN, and I'm just within range. It's what I have now.

  • Verizon BLOWS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sneakyimp (1161443) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @05:09PM (#20829977)
    Anyone who doesn't think this is a crime is a moron. *We* paid for this indirectly by subsidizing telco monopolies with our tax dollars. Also, isn't Verizon the company that has tried to stop the 700MHZ auction through legal auction? They are bending over backwards to try and eliminate competition. It's painfully obvious and it really pisses me off. As for that right-wing troll who complains about Markey being a socialist, I wish I could put him in a factory before the Sherman Act of 1890. I bet we wouldn't hear him complaining about socialist tendencies then. Furthermore, is it really 'anti-business' if the government is trying to encourage *competition* ? Think about it moron. What you really should be complaining about is Verizon and their ilk taking money from the cookie jar that is the Universal Service Fund which is *supposed* to guarantee service to rural areas - $4B out of our pockets *every year*. Have you ever tried using your cell phone in a remote area? Do you think you can get high-speed internet in Bald Knob, Arkansas? I seriously doubt it. Futhermore, Verizon won the $10B Federal IWN contract *and* wants to get more government money from the USF for the 700MHZ spectrum. Their gall knows no bounds. If you are a true republican you should be complaining about all this pork and the pig that is Verizon. Quadraginta, *please* STFU!

  • It gets even worse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheMeld (13880) <cheetah-slashdot&fastcat,org> on Tuesday October 02 2007, @07:12PM (#20831411) Homepage
    My downstairs neighbor had FIOS put in. In addition to disconnecting the neighbor's copper all the way to the pole, the wonderfully helpful FIOS installer:
    • Cut the copper line where it entered my building
    • Filled the hole in the wall with silicone goo (preventing rewiring of the copper)
    • Disconnected the copper all the way up to the pole
    • Changed/disconnected my copper connection at the CO
    • Plugged the FIOS unit in the basement into an outlet that is on my electric meter

    It took me 3 weeks of fighting with Verizon (who insisted on taking 2 days to make a service appointment window, and insisted that they be 8a-7p) and my DSL provider (who was horribly frustrated by their inability to get Verizon to simply run a clean *bleeping* loop) to get things back up and running.

    • Re:Only on slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chill (34294) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:07PM (#20829063) Journal
      Copper infrastructure was mostly paid for by government granted monopolies. In return, it was a tariffed service that the telcos had to lease to anyone, in a non-discriminatory way.

      Yes, they had to lease to their competitors. That was the price of the gov't granting them a monopoly.

      Fiber is paid for by the telcos, not the gov't so is not a tariffed service. While Verizon MUST lease copper to competitors, it isn't compelled to lease fiber access. Verizon cutting the copper is effectively cutting off any competition that was not a Baby Bell in a past life.

      No, they can't just reconnect it. The copper is cut on BOTH ends -- telco CO and house. Feel free to reconnect one end, but they aren't required to let you hook it back up in their CO.

      The only reason Verizon and AT&T and the others can afford to pay to lay the fiber is the wealth that was created by their guaranteed monopoly.

    • Some Ideas are Worth Keeping, Some Not. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Erris (531066) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:48PM (#20829675) Homepage Journal

      Fiber == Future. Copper == Past. This is the idea of capitalism, we want an even playing field for companies so that they can edge out the competition with better prices/ideas. Verizon is doing that, and quiet well.

      If things really were free, you would be right. They are not and you are selling yourself out. It was a sin for government to grant Ma Bell a monopoly. To undo that sin, the public servitude must be liberated and the Bell holdings must be dissolved. The other answer is to have a completely public network that everyone can use. Any combination of the two will favor one company over the others and this is why US networks have gone from world supremacy to third rate status. Verizon is doing what they are doing so that others won't be able to serve you. When they are finished robbing you of choice they will take your freedom.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by chill (34294)
      It is cost prohibitive. You claim that their customers would be loyal for years and years, but it would be trivial for Verizon to say "Three months free for anyone who switches from Covad!" and crush them.

      The only reason Verizon and AT&T can afford it is because of the decades spent as a government granted monopolist and the wealth that generated. They only want to prevent competition from following the path they themselves trod.

    • Re:Wait, I'm confused -- who started the mess? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gurps_npc (621217) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:20PM (#20829279)
      Yeah, you ARE confused. Verizon often did not lay the coper lines, Ma Bell did. Oh yeah, and Ma Bell (or Verizon later) was granted a MONOPOLY and made a huge amount of cash on it. In exchange they were told, you have to let other people rent those lines. It was part of the Deal. Oh, and also don't forget that when they installed the copper in the first place they often charged the home owner to do it. As in, I paid to put this stuff in, I will need it later, so how dare you rip it out So yeah, they are RIPPING US OFF. They are in effect paying their employees money to prevent them from having to fulfill their legal obligations to RENT (as in they get PAID for it) the copper. Totally illegal, totally a waste of cash and totally unethical. But you go on and and complaing about how what they are doing is 'ok' cause they own the copper.

    • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chill (34294) on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:14PM (#20829177) Journal
      Verizon's telco predecessors made that capital investment with gov't guaranteed monopolies. In short, it really ISN'T Verizon's copper, it is copper paid for by taxes and a gov't granted monopoly. It is national infrastructure.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by homer_ca (144738)
      It's the same in California. When I signed up earlier this year, it even said in the install FAQs on the website that they'll cut the copper. It doesn't say that any more, though.

      The only reason they didn't was because I don't have POTS and only ordered Internet. I'm also in a small apartment building, and they ran fiber just to my unit because I'm the only one in the building who ordered FIOS.

    • Re:cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TechyImmigrant (175943) * on Tuesday October 02 2007, @04:14PM (#20829189) Journal
      As someone who has FIOS, the difference in service is clear. With copper I was free to choose my ISP. I chose a very, very good local mom and pop ISP. With Fiber I'm stuck with Verizon.

      The technology may be more modern, but the terms of service are in the stoneage. It would be better in the long run if the terms of service were forcibly opened, as with copper, since they don't appear willing to open them voluntarily.

      This is something of a reversal of history though. Verizon didn't deploy the stuff until they got a waiver of the copper rules requiring they open them to other ISPs. They were active in closing the terms of service and the government went right along with them.

      Bastards.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.