Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Businesses

Verizon Copper Cutoff Traps Customers 269

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Copper Cutoff Traps Customers

Comments Filter:
  • Duhh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:24PM (#19791101) Homepage

    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.

    From a sales point of view, why would you want to tell someone "Oh by the way, there's no turning back, if you decide you don't like FIOS, you're fucked because we're going to cut the old line as soon as you switch" ? Alot of people are going to be disturbed by that & it could be the deal breaker in alot of cases.

    From a Verision point of view [font size="0.002"]maintaining both networks must be pretty expensive[/font].

    It's like polar bears going to a new iceburg when they realize the one they're on is about to rollover. Some polar bears are going to have a shitty time making the swim to the new iceburg, but the quicker everyone gets over there it better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:29PM (#19791151)
    Nothing like screwing over any future resident of a house. I guess that's something that would need to be included in a home sale. "By the way, buying this house will lock you into Verizon's broadband." Doesn't seem right.
  • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:43PM (#19791253)
    You can't please the average Slashedotter. You guys have complained for years that telecoms are not replacing copper with fiber. Now Verizon replaces copper with fiber, and you bitch.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:49PM (#19791295)
    Maybe it is news because verizon and the other telcos and cable companies keep coming up with new (which makes it "news") shaft the consumer things? I'd go as far as saying cutting the copper is deliberate sabotage of critical national infrastructure and a violation of the implied trust the telcos got when AT&T was broken up and they were allowed to take over parts of the publicly paid for copper infrastructure. Yes, that's right, the public paid for every penny of it, and the telcos got free eminent domain seizures for running it over private property, something rather valuable in today's world. They've also gotten billions of dollars to maintain it, with those frakking service fees you see on your bill that they asked for and received.

        The copper built this nations telecommunications and cutting it is at a minimum consumer unfriendly and is destroying quite decent backup that is already there and works. They could like, just leave it the fuck alone when they install the fiber in case the customer wants to use it for something else or have a backup connection, perhaps from another company. And if verizon doesn't want that copper, it should be taken away from them with no recompensation whatsoever, just like any other abandoned property on the street, and given to someone else who would actually use it after being held and auctioned off by the local marshals or sheriffs, just like they do with abandoned cars or abandoned buildings.
  • Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daeg ( 828071 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:11PM (#19791449)
    Not at all. They are replacing it with technology locked into Verizon. With copper, other companies could lease the lines from the line owner. Not so with fiber. It would be one thing if Verizon were using wholly private land for their fiber, but they are putting it on public easements and public property with public infrastructure-improvement subsidies. They should serve the public first -- which means allowing competitors to use the equipment that they install on public land.

    If you want a deregulated, private network -- buy your own land to lay your own lines using only your own money. Verizon is doing none of those things.
  • by AlphaOne ( 209575 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:11PM (#19791451)
    So whats the story getting whipped up about?

    Let's say Verizon decides to raise the rates on the FiOS service by 800%. What are you going to do then?

    Your first instinct would be to switch providers, but you can't do that because you don't have infrastructure the competitors can use going to your house.

    The million dollar question was asked earlier: is Verizon obligated to wholesale access to the fiber to competitors? If the answer to that question is yes, then this is much ado about nothing... go buy a battery and plug your FiOS stuff into it. If the answer is no, then this is a new monopoly forming and it's pretty underhanded (and typical) for Verizon to lock competitors out.
  • by HouseArrest420 ( 1105077 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:18PM (#19791503)

    I'd go as far as saying cutting the copper is deliberate sabotage of critical national infrastructure and a violation of the implied trust the telcos got when AT&T was broken up and they were allowed to take over parts of the publicly paid for copper infrastructure. Yes, that's right, the public paid for every penny of it, and the telcos got free eminent domain seizures for running it over private property, something rather valuable in today's world.
    And who do you think is paying to remove that copper? The consumer. And who do you think is paying for the FIOS replacement to that network? The consumer. And who do you think will pay to remove the FIOS/Cable lines in 20-30 years (possibly sooner) when EVERYTHING from your computer to your refrigerator to your TV will run off a wireless network? The consumer. And who do you think wll pay for the set up of that global wireless network? The consumer.

    The consumer will ALWAYS, and has ALWAYS, been the provider for ANY change in ANY thing. There's no use crying/complaining/wiching things will change, they won't. That's how this world was built, on the money of those living in it.

  • by quanticle ( 843097 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:28PM (#19791573) Homepage

    So 800% is a bit extreme. What about 50% then? Or 25%? Even a moderate increase in the rate will net Verizon significant profit, while not significantly impacting their user base. And, if they don't have to open up to competitors, Verizon can slowly crank up rates, netting huge profits for themselves without spooking the users.

  • consumers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:31PM (#19791587)
    I think I said that, and it is the consumers-the publics-copper after all. If verizon doesn't want it, it should be taken away from them then and someone else can use it. In fact, I'd go as far as saying all the damn copper should be reseized from the telcos so they can't pull any bogus additional fee nonsense on the public. They keep saying it is "their" wire,pure horse hockey, they just sort of gradually assumed ownership of it, it's always been the publics wire with a limited granted monopoly to maintain it. If they cease maintaining it, they have given up any claims to control over it and should leave it alone.

    No maintenance means they have abandoned it, back to my original point, the sheriffs take it and auction it off and their workers stop touching the stuff.

    As to the wireless everything, I'll believe it when I see it. At best wireless today is half assed and half working and still pretty insecure and flaky. How long have we been waiting for wimax for instance?

        Until then, they shouldn't deliberately destroy that which is still working, at least leave it intact for backup purposes.
  • by Shatrat ( 855151 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:54PM (#19791775)
    The US has a primitive broadband infrastructure BECAUSE of this sort of activity.
    With a more competitive marketplace there would be pressure to improve quality, reduce prices, and expand the market.
    If Verizon has no competition they charge what they want, provide crappy service, and dont invest in their infrastructure.
  • by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:57PM (#19791801)
    Oh, that's rich.

    How do you explain the existence of contract lawyers? You know; people highly trained and well paid to spend their days understanding how to read and write small print. --If every working Joe was fully trained in the reading and understanding of deliberately deceptive small print in deliberately confusing contractual agreements, then why, oh, why do we have contract lawyers and schools dedicated to teaching contract lawyers?

    Some people who sign contracts are not the same as you; they might be, say for example, overwrought working parents who may not have the same time and ability to focus their attention that you enjoy. Some people didn't have the proper nutrition or the same educational opportunities while growing up that you did, and so have fewer skills with regard to understanding the technical minutia in contractual agreements. Or are you suggesting the people who are not like you should be punished in some kind of 'Survival of the Fittest' line of myopic thinking? Should people who are not the same as you be fed to the sharks? I disagree, especially when 'Fittest' actually means, 'born to parents who happened to grow up in the right place and the right time with the right skin colour.'

    I've met sharp-witted poor people who are among some of the hardest working humans on the planet, and I've met dull as doorknob rich people who are not, so 'lazy' and 'unfit' are piss-poor generalizations against people who aren't as advantaged as you. --That's a pre-emptive, "Don't even go there," in case you were wondering.

    There is more than one kind of person on this planet; and thank goodness for that! Otherwise we'd have a world filled with tight-ass conservatives. The world would be missing good sex, 95% of the creative arts, spicy food and automobiles which come, "in any colour we want so long as it's black". In other words, the world would run like a Swiss watch, but there would be little appeal in actually being alive there.

    Which is to say. . , some people spend their time developing skills other than the understanding of legal fine print and technology. Thank goodness!

    Corporations which go to lengths to exploit people, and even create weakness in people which can then later be exploited, should not be held blameless while those they harm are sneered at for not being white and rich and mono-cultured enough.


    -FL

  • by ryanov ( 193048 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:09PM (#19791885)
    What about TELEPHONE service? Currently there are a number of local providers you can use. If they can't use the fiber, you are stuck with Verizon.
  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:18PM (#19791945)
    less onimous than these posts want to make out

    Good luck selling your house to someone who just wants plain old phone service, unless Verizon's going to put the copper back in or charge normal phone rates for people not using the internet stuff.
  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dal20402 ( 895630 ) * <dal20402@ m a c . com> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:19PM (#19791955) Journal

    they're cutting copper off and replacing it with fiber? Who cares?

    FCC regulations require them to lease the copper to other broadband providers. They have no such obligation with the fiber. Once the copper is gone, you're locked into Verizon broadband (unless you switch to cable). At that point, especially for those households without cable available, Verizon has no reason not to jack up your prices and/or provide shitty service.

    It's the same thing we always see from the telcos, and which explains the terrible Internet, cellular, and POTS service we have in the U.S. Instead of competing, they run whining to either Congress or the regulators for special protection. Because there is no way for consumers to counteract well-funded political interests, Congress gives them whatever they want, and they don't have to compete anymore.

  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:22PM (#19791971)
    This is something all nerds would love, unlimited bandwidth to the home but the only article I see are about how they're cutting copper off and replacing it with fiber? Who cares?

    The next tenants/home owners who move in. While a nerd/geek may be happy paying tens of dollars each month for cable/broadband/telephone service, the next tenants may resent being forced to pay for a whole load of services they don't want. This might even affect the rental/property price of the location in question.

    Having freedom of choice is far better than having no choice at all.
  • by mediis ( 952323 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:23PM (#19791989)
    they started fios in "green zones", where there was no pre-existing copper. this gave them the work around where they didn't have to share their lines w/ other telcos. its only a logical conclusion to land lock the customer back into their territories by cutting the coper. if you are going to spend the billions in infrastructure and lines then you might as well block all others from access.
  • by dal20402 ( 895630 ) * <dal20402@ m a c . com> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:27PM (#19792011) Journal

    when EVERYTHING from your computer to your refrigerator to your TV will run off a wireless network?

    Please, God, no. I'll shoot myself. Let me keep my anti-competitive and extortionate, but wired, network.

    Have you ever lived in an apartment building full of MIT geeks? I have routinely had up to 41 802.11g networks visible in my apartment, operating on all 11 channels, over the last year. The interference is so bad during peak times (anytime in the evening) that sitting 3 feet from my WRT54G I get transfer rates as low as 500b/sec with 90% packet loss. (At 3 am my network works perfectly.) I understand the higher signal strength of 802.11n will make it worse. Wireless technology is just not yet ready to be deployed in physically dense environments.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:30PM (#19792031)
    A large portion of the copper infstructure was paid for by the public, NOT verizon. Also, is there some technical reason that the old copper needs to be removed to install fiber? No, there isn't a compelling reason other then to lock people into their service.

    Good day, my dim witted friend.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @05:12PM (#19792397) Homepage
    But I'm very sad to hear this about Verizon. This is the final nail in the coffin of the ultra-reliable count-on-it-in-emergencies service that Theodore Vail, AT&T, and the Western Electric engineers brought into being. Through pure self-interest, and I know that the days of Ma Bell had their downside, but it was one of the wonders of the world. The phones always worked and in the extremely rare occasions when they didn't, the phone company acted as if they had a responsibility to make them work.

    Now we're slowly getting pushed back into cheap service that works except when you really need it. Because it's easy to evaluate what your phone costs, and it's easy to look at the list of spiffy features, but it's very hard for Joe Consumer to know how reliable the service is... so the free market can't put a proper value on reliability.

    Six months ago, the company I work for installed spiffy VOIP telephones. Because of some issue or another, they kept the old I-know-it's-not-Centrex-but-whaddaya-call-it system connected for a while. And there were also about three individual plain old lines for some fax machines.

    A few months ago there was a power outage that started around 9 a.m. and lasted into the early afternoon.

    The spiffy VOIP phones went dead immediately.

    The old company phones kept working for about an hour.

    Apparently the local cell towers don't have much in the way of battery backup because a few hours later nobody's cell phone could get a signal.

    But the three plain old phones were still working six hours later, and based on past experience I believe they would have worked for a couple of days.
  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by encoderer ( 1060616 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @05:36PM (#19792607)
    As much as I understand that regulation is sometimes necessary to keep a level playing field, it's no myth that regulation is also a barrier to free markets and the general principle of Capitalism.

    Which is why any heavy regulations of Fiber at this point in time would almost certainly have the effect of stunting growth of fiber networks. These companies are spending billions. To invest that kind of cash you need to see a tempting ROI, which just won't happen if you saddle it with regulations.

    If we want Fiber networks to be public infrastructure, then we need to pay for it with public monies. Regulate it, fine, but give them gigantic tax incentives to actually run the stuff.

    I'll probably be modded down, or have some slashdotter call me a faciest right winger who is trying to protect TheEnemy. I don't care. In all honesty I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of Liberalism and the democratic party you've ever spoken to. But I also have a BS in Economics and this is economics 101.
  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ChiRaven ( 800537 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @10:50PM (#19795103) Journal
    I expect that Verizon, assuming that it retains its status as the ILEC in a given territory, is still obligated to supply residential POTS service to anyone who applies for it at tariffed rates regardless of the technology they use to deliver that service. There has never been any provision that I know of in a telephone tariff that specified the technology through which basic residential service had to be delivered.
  • by Tmack ( 593755 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @10:54PM (#19795135) Homepage Journal

    Those CLEC providers will submit workorders with Verizon to reconnect them to the copper grid. Its the same as if a person elects for a CLEC provider in a new home without ever having had previous phone service. Verizon will come out and bury the lines if necessary, and install the SDU on the side of the home, and usually punch it down to activate the customer.

    And then bill the CLEC for this "service". If they can get away with an arial run, you are lucky, as the digging adds time and lots of money to the bill. Every time we get rejects based on no facilities available to the prem, need customer build-out, its at least $500, digging runs into the thousands and generally causes that account to be canceled, further locking them to their old provider, since the cost goes directly to that customer. The ILECs have many dirty tricks up their sleeves to try to keep their customers locked in, the facilities game is not new, this is just a different twist to it. The FCC rule is that they are required to lease "available" idle facilities at the mandated bulk rate. They are already bad about declaring "no facilities available" for certain CO's, but then are magically able to turn a "special access" order around in a day (special access is just terminology for full-price on the circuit rather than bulk rate, and when caught at this game they get sued, quite successfully, but still a bita for CLECs). Now it seems they have decided they can go in an cause themselves to not have any available idle facilities by simply removing them. Seeing as the public originally paid for the lines they are specifically removing (last mile copper), this should be dealt with by the FCC. Too bad the FCC is in thier pocket.

    Tm

  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @10:20AM (#19800037)

    These companies are spending billions. To invest that kind of cash you need to see a tempting ROI, which just won't happen if you saddle it with regulations. If we want Fiber networks to be public infrastructure, then we need to pay for it with public monies.
    I thought it would be better to respond than to mod you down. Your arguments are sound assuming that the telcos are doing the fiber rollout on their own with their own money, except that they're not. Congress gave the telcos a couple billion-with-a-b dollars of public funds to roll out fiber infrastructure in the US. The telcos have dragged their feet, mostly not used any of that money for fiber, and have even come back and asked for more money and tax breaks from congress to do what they were already supposed to have done. In addition the lines still run over public and private land and are granted easements by the government to do so. If any of the telcos wanted to do this on their own it would probably be so expensive as to be nearly impossible. So yes, since they are already spending taxpayer money to roll out a privately owned network, I'd say that we the people get to attach some strings to that deal - such as NOT disconnecting the copper infrastructure that is ALSO publicly owned and paid for.
  • Re:Makes me wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Monday July 09, 2007 @11:54AM (#19801397)
    You're almost right - we actually paid billions for a fiber network we never received. Not only that, but it can be argued that the telco's don't actually own any of the wires/cables/fiber, as it was all subsidized by the people (taxes) one way or the other. The same can be said for cable companies.

    While I'm not one to liek government interference in business, this really does appear to be a utility function that should be owned by the public, much the same as other municipality owned services.

So... did you ever wonder, do garbagemen take showers before they go to work?

Working...