Verizon Sells Off Rural Lines

ffejie writes "Verizon has announced that it will be spinning off rural assets to FairPoint Communications. These include all assets in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The deal will close sometime in 2007 and is worth $2.7 billion. 1.6 million phone lines, 234,000 DSL subscribers, and 600,000 long-distance customers will be moved to FairPoint in Verizon's effort to shed its low-margin lines in rural areas. The sale has been rumored since the summer at least. With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?"

Comments

What happens?

[AKAImBatman]

With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?"

They get better service?

Big telcos like Verizon tend to focus on large population areas first, because that's where the money is. Which means that the major cities get more options and better service while Bob Newhart over in Middlebury, Vermont can forget about ever getting Fiber service. In fact, I'd guess that the sale of the rural lines in these areas are being done specifically so that Verizon doesn't have to deploy FiOS as promised.

In comparison, a small company like Fairpoint is going to have to focus on the customers they've got. Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.

Re:What happens?

[stevesliva]

I know a number of people with DSL in Chittenden County, including one in Fairfax... it's more a matter of how far you are from some hardware dohickey than how populated your area is.

And I could definitely have it in Burlington, but I use cable instead. I haven't used Verizon since I canceled my local phone service in favor of my cell, which is about 20% cheaper per month.

Re:What happens?

[Zuato]

If their service is like Verizon's in Ohio, they'll be better off with the smaller carrier. A few years back I had to argue with them to get them to fix noise on my line. They repeatedly told me over and over that there was no noise on my line until the fifth time I called the person on the other end could hear it. This went on for two weeks. Turns out a rather costly piece of equipment was going belly up in their switching station one block away from my apartment. The technician stopped by and apologized profusely and then said he had no idea how long it would take to get repaired because they had to get approval to replace it. A week later it was replaced. A few miles south of this they have horrible lines (Waverly, OH area). They refuse to replace the lines, so every time it rains heavily or a storm blows through they have massive outages and end up working their guys 16+ hours a day all week to get their customers lines working again. I would hope that the smaller company would be more pro-active and more customer focused than Verizon has been.

Re:What happens?

[qbwiz]

As a counterpoint, the central office that we get phone service from is operated by D&E. Most of the ones surrounding us are operated by Verizon. We pay $45 a month for 512Kbps down, 256 kbps up DSL, while you can get 768 Kbps down DSL from Verizon for $20/month. I suspect that it'll be quite a while until we get FTTP. One advantage of larger companies like Verizon is that they have enough capital to do these big projects, which smaller phone companies, like ours, can't match.

Re:What happens?

[Firehed]

Well, as a Vermont resident, this wouldn't surprise me. Of course, plenty of the state is nothing but Bumfuckville where costs to deploy proper internet connections would be insane. My aunt, for example, in Braintree - absolute middle of nowhere with incredibly low population density and the only internet options being dial-up and supremely overpriced satellite. Neither cable nor DSL is an option for her, while both are a choice for me in Williston where we actually have people (and, more importantly, people with money and most of their teeth). I get to sit here on a 6Mbit cable line while she has a slow bandwidth-capped internet connection that doesn't work well in bad weather.

Though while househunting in NH, I was rather excited to find out that FIOS is available in what seemed to be pretty middle-of-nowhere locations. It would seem that Verizon isn't intent on screwing everyone over, just those people where it'll be geographically convenient.

Re:What happens?

[mandelbr0t]

Sounds like the "early" days of DSL service here in Canada. DSL had a range of about 3km from the CO, provided that the CO was correctly outfitted. Most communities weren't close enough to an upgraded CO when DSL service was first offered, so cable got really popular for broadband. Most network-savvy people quickly realized that cable companies are teh sux0r when it comes to Internet service, so switched to DSL as soon as it was available in their area.

However, unlike the United States, Canada has laws that forced Telcos to eventually upgrade all the COs, regardless of what they felt the market would actually be in a particular area. In the end, I think that it was good for business anyway; there's very healthy broadband competition: 2 large Telcos that provide residential and business connections as well as reselling bandwidth to smaller DSL and WiFi providers and a cable company in case you don't like DSL or don't really care about quality, just quantity.

My understanding is that the United States has very similar network infrastructure to Canada at the time everything started rolling out in 1998. There are some concentrations of high-bandwidth, low-latency networks, but everything is mostly dial-up or cheap broadband. Unfortunately, the difference between the quality of network service you will find in Canada and your average provider in the States is considerable. Maybe the US will prove that capitalism and market forces can bring the aging infrastructure up to snuff in short order, but it's almost 10 years behind Canada and large parts of Europe right now. Believe me, I feel for you.

mandelbr0t

Re:What happens?

[moeinvt]

                    "Bumfuckville" ?
                    "middle of nowhere" ?
                    "people with money and most of their teeth" ?

With an attitude like that, you can't possibly be a native. Go back to Massachusetts where you belong. We've got enough arrogant transplants in this state already.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted I don't the specifics, but aren't some of the 'FEES' on my phone bills paying for infrastructure upgrades?

Also, isn't the telephone service a public utility, which means its not OWNED by anyone, its merely managed by certain companies?

This is why I despise ALL telecomm companies.
er. correction: This is why I will soon despise the 1 telecomm company.

FUCK YOU AT&T-Cingular-SBC!!!!

Re:What happens?

[drinkypoo]

However, unlike the United States, Canada has laws that forced Telcos to eventually upgrade all the COs, regardless of what they felt the market would actually be in a particular area.

Pacific Bell (now SBC's West Coast operation) had plans to put DSL out there to all of their customers at one point.

Unfortunately, besides the usual monetary bullshit (aka graft) Pac Bell got nailed by the FCC for having unreliable DSL and they started getting fined every time someone had DSL connectivity problems. As a result they scaled back from 17,500 feet from the CO to 14,000 feet from the CO. I've got friends who max out their line at all times, at over 17,000 feet (they got installed before the distance rollback.) I was at 15,500 feet when I lived in Marysville, so they wouldn't give me DSL - so I got cable.

At the same time, Pacific Bell was half-deregulated, and the half-assed deregulation meant that they simply had no money. Then SBC bought them and their only plan is to milk everyone for money.

I'm basically waiting for a WiMax provider, because satellite is slow and capped and very high latency, and I live way the hell out in the boonies (miles off a road that takes you miles from the freeway, a sort of back of beyond kind of thing except we have a paved road because some commissioner lives/lived out where we do) so there's no way in hell I'm getting DSL any time soon. In the meantime I download at work, and use dialup at home just for email, very light web surfing, and the occasional patch download.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just liked that he is so arrogant about living in "Williston, VT".

Wherever that is. *rolls eyes*

Re:What happens?

[otis wildflower]

They get better service?

Possibly, but it'll probably get more expensive...

In comparison, a small company like Fairpoint is going to have to focus on the customers they've got. Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.

Not a lot of telco-heads out in farm country, the skills are either not there or are already fully-employed elsewhere. Also, depending on the state, this is legally tedious.

Nope, rural folk will probably just get jacked even harder.

Re:What happens?

[westlake]

Also, isn't the telephone service a public utility, which means its not OWNED by anyone, its merely managed by certain companies?

There have been exceptions, of course.

But, broadly speaking, telephone companies in the states have been privately owned since the introduction of the service in the late 1870's. As was the telegraph before them.

Re:What happens?

[danheskett]

There is a lot more than just farm country in the areas you describe. And a lot more high tech people than you can imagine. I live in Maine and I was the 40th person on the east coast to get high-speed internet via cable. Those were the days.

Re:What happens?

[no_space_in_time]

Williston is 'big-box' central. It was a huge field 10 years ago, now it serves consumers that Burlington refused.

Yeah, I live in the same county as both and wouldn't brag, unless '99' is your kind of steakhouse.

While I'll wait to pass judgement on the new telco, worse comes to worse I can go back to a cable modem. :D Parent probably has summer teeth.

Re:What happens?

[bxbaser]

"They get better service?"

Better service for more money and less speed.

Sure I can call up my isp and talk when I have a problem and even get them to come out pretty easy.

But for that it costs me $99.00 per month for .5 up and 1.5 down.
1 year ago it was .3 up and 1 down for $99 per month.

Long way from 1 up and 6.5 down for $49 per month.

The bigger isp can offer more cause the econemy of scale.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't quite have that attitude, but I often refer to places in Vermont as East|West Bumfuck, and I'm a native. I also don't know why you assume even if he is a transplant that he's from Massachusetts: we receive a respectable amount of assholes from New York and New Jersey as well.

Re:What happens?

[moeinvt]

"I also don't know why you assume even if he is a transplant that he's from Massachusetts"

It was an educated guess. NY or MA were by far the two highest probabilities. Then, based on the comment regarding "house hunting in NH" I figured he was a refugee fleeing from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape from there, and when I have to go to Boston I'm always anxious to get back. It just bothers me when people come into our state with this attitude and pretend that the hellhole they just escaped from was so superior to our beautiful rural state. Tourists can give us a little of their arrogant BS because they leave some of their money behind and take most of their issues back with them. When you friggin relocate here however it's time to drop the attitude and let a few of your teeth fall out.

(I'm well aware of the assholes from NY/NJ as well)

Re:What happens?

[MSTCrow5429]

Verizon has been aggressively rolling out FiOS in southern New Hampshire, for months. I don't think that will all evaporate as soon as FairPoint takes ownership. Disposing of value added infrastructure would just be dumb.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Actually, if I read the fine article correctly, Verizon isn't simply giving all those customers to Fairpoint. There will be a new baby telco, which will be owned 60% by Fairpoint, 40% by Verizon; that's where Verizon's northern New Englanders are going.

Re:What happens?

[walt-sjc]

And we will NEVER, EVER see any kind of FIOS service until copper prices go up so much that it ends up being less expensive to replace the old copper with fiber when it wears out in 100 years or so. Even the larger cities won't get it.

So let's just make that assumption. Fiber in smaller communities and rural areas is cost prohibitive. Where the fsck is WiMAX? What about internet via the old UHF channels we heard about a few years back (since it can propagate better than the 2.4G range?)

Re:What happens?

[bofkentucky]

Agreed, the 5 rural phone companies I worked for up until mid-'05 have been doing triple play FTTN Phone, DSL, and Video since 2000. Our GTE, Bellsouth, Verizon, Alltel, and Windstream competitors constantly drug their feet rolling out dsl, much less the TV leg of the triple.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon has neglected technology upgrades in Maine for years, did not install FIOS here, and charge a bundle for 40-year-old technology. We're glad to see them go.

Re:What happens?

[otis wildflower]

Where the fsck is WiMAX?

Ask Wal-Mart (and Cringely) :p

Re:What happens?

[jonadab]

> while you can get 768 Kbps down DSL from Verizon for $20/month.

Why would I want to buy DSL from Verizon, when they can't (or won't) even keep a standard phone line in sufficiently good working order for a dialup connection to work, and every time it rains the land lines sound like cellphones? You call them, and they say nothing's wrong. You insist, and they send somebody out to your house to tell you nothing's wrong. Their repair guys will look at you with a straight face and tell you that they can't hear any noise on the line, when the noise is louder than your voice. Nope, nothing's wrong with that line. Silent line, that's what that is.

> We pay $45 a month for 512Kbps down, 256 kbps up DSL

And you actually _get_ it? Be happy. I would love to have a local telco that actually delivers what they're being paid to provide. Instead I have Verizon.

Well,

[TheGreek]

With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?

We'll get hosed.

Re:Well,

['nother poster]

Bet you don't. You won't get FTTP, at least not for a while, but I bet the service for what you have now will improve.

Re:Well,

[walt-sjc]

My service with Verizon has been problem free with one exception. Over the past several years I've had numerous lines installed with DSL at various locations, both business and residential. The only problem I had is when I requested a speed upgrade from 1.5 to 3M, and the did it, but my line didn't support it (too far from the CO.) Within 4 hours of reporting the problem, they had it fixed. Actual line distance as tested by the tech was different than the computer had.

I'm very concerned about my business DSL service now with Fairpoint. Will it go up in price? Will it become flaky / slow? Ah fsck it. I'm moving to Arizona. Tempe looks nice. At least I'll have a choice of ISP's unlike here.

Re:Well,

[AKAImBatman]

If you've got DSL, then you're probably not "rural". I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:Well,

[walt-sjc]

If you've got DSL, then you're probably not "rural".

That is a bad assumption. You can be rural and get DSL in many cases. It all depends on how far you are from a Remote Terminal, and whether the telco has equipment that supports DSL in the RT. I know people who are 40 miles from a town with a population greater than 300 that have DSL. Being in a big city doesn't guarantee DSL either. I used to live in San Jose and couldn't get it due to the distance to the nearest RT, instead having to settle for $200 / month IDSL.

what will happen to the consumers

[wiredog]

They're screwed. They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them. If they're lucky (for suitably large definitions of 'luck'), they'll be able to get high speed service from their local cable provider.

Re:what will happen to the consumers

[Kadin2048]

They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them.

And there was never going to be any FIOS for them with Verizon. At least with a regional company, customer service will probably be better (I mean, unless they come to your house and actually beat you with a stick, it can't possibly be worse), and they'll have a better chance of getting new technologies as soon as it's technically and economically feasible in the area.

Re:what will happen to the consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be suprised. Some rural areas could end up getting fiber. I did firmware development on one of the products Verizon is using to roll out its FiOS service. At the time, sales was telling us engineers that there was actually a lot of interest coming from the smaller providers in rural areas. Why? Because of the line lengths.

In rural areas where the population is really spread out, it doesn't make sense to have everyone connected directly to a central office. You can only run copper so far. So what they do is set up a series of remote terminals and run T1s or sometimes an OC3 between them. If you live in the middle of nowhere, you might go through 7 or 8 remote terminals before you hit a central office. Typically, the remote terminals can't be more than a few kilometers apart. Having all that equipment spread out is expensive to maintain. When something isn't working, someone has to get in a truck and drive to the remote terminal to figure out whats going on, replace a card, etc. Plus, they have to maintain power at all those remote terminals.

By going to fiber, they can eliminate all those remote terminals. The BPON and GPON specs allow you to go 20km without a repeater. That means all that powered equipment at the remote terminals that's prone to failure can get replaced with passive optical splitters. At the same time, they can offer cable TV and high speed internet service to areas that never had it before and increase revenue.

Also, the company I worked for that is selling all that equipment to Verizon built their BPON solution on the same platform that was used for remote terminals. Basically, any network that has that remote terminal equipment already installed can plug in a BPON card into any remote terminal and offer fiber service out of it. That allows the rural service providers to slowly upgrate their network with minimal investment.

Obviously fiber service isn't going to be offered everywhere, but you might be suprised at some of the locations where it starts showing up.

No worries.

[Rob T Firefly]

what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?"

It's just a short-term stopgap until Ma Bell gets around to buying back that particular piece of herself.

Probibly be better service.

['nother poster]

I don't know anything about FairPoint, but when I went to a small 13,000 household telco my service improved greatly. Prices went up a bit, but only a few percent and my service has been great.

What's wrong with regional telcos?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

...what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint

Not sure, but do you know any "larger telcos" that do anything but s*** on their residential customers? My best experiences with phone and data services have been with "regional" providers; the only reason I gave up my last one was that I moved to an area where the only two choices were AT&T and Charter (lose lose).

Re:What's wrong with regional telcos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure, but do you know any "larger telcos" that do anything but s*** on their residential customers?

Deutche Telecom doesn't. Unless you are willing to pay extra for that.

Re:What's wrong with regional telcos?

[MattyCobb]

I live in suburban east Tennessee and have had nothing but great experience with Comcast. Though I also know people who get screwed by them regularly. Internet service in totally random based on where you live geographically more than who it is from or the population around you what I have seen.

They get better service.

[Anonymous Coward]

what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint? They will get better service as this company will be more in tune to their customer's needs, while Verizon, will continue to focus on it's core service instead of neglecting the smaller parts of their business.

Smart move

[Spazmania]

This means they anticipate a Democratic-leaning FCC in the coming years. By creating structural seperation for the markets where they don't want to roll out FiOS, they insulate themselves from the impact of a ruling to the effect that they have to roll out service in an equitable manner.

Re:Smart move

[tgd]

Its not just going forward, my understanding is they're already battling that in New Hampshire. In the wealthy southern edge of New Hampshire, we've had FIOS in some towns for a year or more. (I'm just about to hit a year here)

When talking to a tech recently about when we might see TV service here, as they have it now in a good number of MA communities, I was told that Verizon was fighting pretty hard with NH and that was holding up any further development state wide -- I guess NH told them they couldn't do any new service rollouts if they weren't going to cover the state evenly, or something to that effect.

Now mind you, NH is generally not the wealthiest, or most culturally sophisticated state. Most of it is very sparsely populated, and its staggering to think what it would cost Verizon to roll out fiber service to a town of 1000 people spread out over dozens of miles of which few if any would actually purchase the higher-end services.

If this frees up Verizon to continue their more focused rollouts, more power to it. Sure, its not ideal for people in those towns not serviced by it, but thats the trade off you make -- property costs half, its quiet, no traffic. Boo hoo if you can't get 15mbit fiber service.

Re:Smart move

[__aajwxe560]

What is interesting is that apparently in this "spin-off", they are unloading debt, receiving roughly $2.7b or so, and Verizon will retain 60% ownership of this new company. It is actually a fairly strategic way to insulate yourself from any rulings that you suggest and yet still retain influential control of the market. http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2007/01/veri zon_to_spin.html

Re:Smart move

[isdnip]

Verizon does not end up with any shares in the company. The deal is that Verizon's shareholders will get Fairpoint shares. So it's a spinoff more than a sale, with little Fairpoint managing it for the shareholders. And no doubt some clever tax accounting tricks going on. From the press release (read way down, on the Fairpoint web site):

Upon the closing of the transaction, Verizon stockholders will own approximately 60 percent of the new company, and FairPoint stockholders will own approximately 40 percent. In connection with the merger, Verizon stockholders will receive one share of FairPoint stock for approximately every 55 shares of Verizon stock held as of the record date. Both the spin-off and merger are expected to qualify as tax-free transactions, except to the extent that cash is paid to Verizon stockholders in lieu of fractional shares.

Verizon Communications will not own any shares in FairPoint after the merger.

The total value to be received by Verizon and its stockholders in exchange for these operations will be approximately $2.715 billion. Verizon stockholders will receive approximately $1.015 billion of FairPoint common stock in the merger, based upon FairPoint's recent stock price and the terms of the merger agreement. Verizon will receive $1.7 billion in value through a combination of cash distributions to Verizon and debt securities issued to Verizon prior to the spin-off. Verizon may exchange these newly issued debt securities for certain debt that was previously issued by Verizon, which would have the effect of reducing Verizon's then-outstanding debt on its balance sheet.

It's all highly ironic

[gerf]

For the last decade or so, small telcos have been bought up by the likes of Verizon. I know just a town over this had happened only last year.

Now, rather than being in the mentality of conglomeration, they're improving profit margins. Eh, it's all business dealings.

I agree with the parent though, this will not hurt, if not greatly benefit, the customers in those areas, despite not having FiOS "guaranteed."

Re:It's all highly ironic

[thepotoo]

There's no customers to hurt.
I live on a PAVED ROAD (laugh, but it's rare in the area mentioned) less than EIGHT MILES from Montpelier, Vermont. It's a fairly major route, and a several hundred people live on it between me and Montpelier.
I've been on the waiting list for high-speed internet since 2001. I'm still stuck on dial-up (on the upside, the state does provide that for free to us). I don't know anyone, outside major population centers (8k+ people) who can get DSL or better.

And I can't see the situation improving with this new deal. Reading TFA, they are talking buzzwords about the merger, but there's no info about the actual consumers.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[jackjumper]

It's too bad. I live in Bolton, in the Champlain Valley Telecom area. They've been great - I've had DSL for over five years, and I'm running about 3.5mbit download speeds right now. If I call tech support, I get someone in Hinesburg. I can't say enough good things about them. Having a local telecom company that owns their own equipment is key.

So will this new deal help? Who knows...

Re:It's all highly ironic

[SupremeTaco]

Yeah, great news for some, but what about those of us still on di

Re:It's all highly ironic

[MollyB]

I live in Marshfield, VT, and I have been well-served by FairPoint for years. I've had a DSL connection for over a year, and the speed keeps increasing at no extra costs.

The few times decades ago I was serviced by NYNEX (now Verizon) and it sucked. You'll be much better off with FairPoint, in my experience.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[jackjumper]

"I feel your pain"

Re:It's all highly ironic

[PaxTech]

I'm still stuck on dial-up (on the upside, the state does provide that for free to us).

It's not free. Someone is paying for it, possibly not you, but someone is. TANSTAAFL.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[thepotoo]

Everyone who lives in Vermont pays taxes. So its not free, but close. Google "GovNET".

Re:It's all highly ironic

[gerf]

My sister lives in Indiana about 1 mile from a city of 11,000 people. She can't get cable or DSL either. In fact, they haven't even upgraded the switchboards for DSL there, except for one in the middle of the city.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[MrKahuna]

How much do you pay for your DSL? Is it more than the $30 / month I pay to Verizon for 3.0MB down / 768K up? Do they have a low cost $20 / month option. I have a bad feeling some of us are going to be suffering from sticker shock.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[Achromatic1978]

Major population center? Hah.

Try this one. I lived within 20 miles of a city of FOUR MILLION and couldn't get DSL. So I moved across the ocean. :)

Re:It's all highly ironic

[MollyB]

The service price I pay is $51.86/mo., which includes static IP ($5.00) and the DSL USF surcharge ($1.91.
I did five download tests, here are the results:
1. 768 kb/s
2. 859 kb/s
3. 1.22 mb/s
4. 1.24 mb/s
5. 1.24 mb/s

upload:
1. 306 kb/s
2. 305 kb/s

I don't know about pricing plans currently. When I signed up I opted for the cheapest deal (excepting static IP) but you can visit their website for details.

I wish I had better news for you. On the upside, the network is rarely down, and the people at the other end of the telephone are nice and helpful.

BTW, I'm 20 miles from any from any town with a stoplight. DSL might be pricey, but for the cost it's lots better than dial-up, my only other option. HTH.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[Mercano]

My parents live two or three miles up dirt in Hartland, VT, and have had DSL since Christmas 2000. Of course, Hartland also gets its phone service from one of those small phone companies , too(VTel (Not to be confused with the electronics manufacturer VTel)), so there you go.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't act stupid. He used the word correctly. Just because your somekind of kneejerk anti-government fruitcake doesn't mean you get to change the definition of works.

for free, Informal. 1. Without charge.

Re:It's all highly ironic

[PaxTech]

Of all the websites on teh intarweb, you'd think people on slashdot could grasp the subtleties inherent in the word "free", what with all the "free as in speech", "free as in beer" discussion that goes on.

Government benefits that are paid for using funds appropriated for the purpose by the government, by force*, are never, ever free. They may be worth the tradeoff to you, but they still shouldn't be considered free. Your definiteion says "without charge", but you pay yearly taxes for all government services so they are patently not free.

*If you don't believe that taxes are collected by force, try not paying them sometime.

Fair Price

[pilsner.urquell]

If they give me $5 I'll take them off there hands.

It may not be all bad. . .

[Hero Zzyzzx]

My folks live in rural Vermont, right down the road from where that moose fell in love with that cow a few years back. Anyway - they have 3 megabit DSL with a local company (Vermontel, IIRC) that essentially never goes down for something like $30/month. The Vermontel support is great, apparently. I know this by inference - they deal with my father's crap and he speaks only good of them.

Re:It may not be all bad. . .

[stevesliva]

And in Burlington, we've got this alternative that I don't use because I don't have local phone service.

Re:It may not be all bad. . .

[superstick58]

It seems consensus is small rural telco is OK. I just want to mention a possibly related concept. I live in a large metro area and by some impossible scheme my cable provider is a small local provider. I must say content is pretty poor. There is no HD/Digital offering. Internet is mediocre and basic cable service is spotty. The system even goes down in heavy rains because the provider loses the satellite. This is just an example of a small company not having the infrastructure and content that a larger company like Time Warner might provide.

I have had Time Warner in the past and besides mediocre customer service, the content was great with HD channels, all digital, available DVR, fast internet etc. From this experience I have, I would prefer to go with a large provider with the assumption they have the infrastructure to deploy superior content, service, and reliability (price issues excluded).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wow...

[kitsunewarlock]

Anyone else just say to themselves "there certainly are a lot of Amish in those areas..."

Re:Wow...

[Kadin2048]

Anyone else just say to themselves "there certainly are a lot of Amish in those areas..."

No, because most people know that the Amish mainly live in Pennsylvania and Upstate New York, not northern New England...

That said, Maine still has a few Shakers left. But everyone else would really like to get DSL.

Re:Wow...

[mhokie]

Only you and a few other uneducated folk.

Re:Wow...

[eclipse_time]

*looks around* Nope.

Oh, lovely!

[greg_barton]

Great! Now I'll have to go all the way to Fairpoint Station to pay my bill. That's way out in the boonies!

Re:Oh, lovely!

[ObiWanKenblowme]

But hey - you'll get all the delicious apples you'd ever want!

Worse than Comcast? Are you kidding?

[Kadin2048]

Not necessarily.

I used to live up in Maine, and while the big-name telco and cablecos wouldn't even dream about rolling out FIOS to most markets there, some local companies were. In particular, there was a local operation in Lewiston that was out, running fiber all over the place. I have no idea where they got their capital, but it was a local business with a huge office downtown, and a pretty rapid deployment plan.

I'm almost positive it was these guys: http://www.oxfordnetworks.com/

Let's face it; if you're not in a major market, then you aren't worth two squirts to a major national carrier. At least with a regional company, they're going to have some reason to pay attention.

Re:Worse than Comcast? Are you kidding?

[TheGreek]

I used to live up in Maine, and while the big-name telco and cablecos wouldn't even dream about rolling out FIOS to most markets there, some local companies were.

Great. I still do. In the "other" Maine, even. Time Warner sells fibre connectivity up here, but it costs an arm and a leg. Do they count as "big-name" for you?

Let's face it; if you're not in a major market, then you aren't worth two squirts to a major national carrier. At least with a regional company, they're going to have some reason to pay attention.

If you're not in a sufficiently populated market, then you're not worth two shits to anyone when it comes to getting any new communications infrastructure before the pricing goes way down to commodity levels--by which time something even more whizbang impressive has come out.

Re:Worse than Comcast? Are you kidding?

[shawn(at)fsu]

then you aren't worth two squirts to a major national carrier
What does Microsoft's Zune have to do with this?

Wimax

[bstadil]

Wimax is perfect for rural areas and a smaller telco can much easier make deal with various suppliers for test cases. Intel would be a perfect choice since they are already spending billions on Wimax.

Re:Wimax

[schnikies79]

In certain areas. Here in southern Indiana it's hilly enough that even a cell tower can't reach more than a few miles (usually 10 or less) in any direction. WiMax isn't likely to do much better.

Far Point, not Fair Point

[Anonymous Coward]

the new customers will be far, far away.

Well here in Michigan...

[Anonymous Coward]

They sold our account to a smaller telco. The telco then decided to lower our speed and double our rates., and this was for three different business lines!

As Verizon puts it, "We only want to deal with T1 connections and you don't qualify"

What happens?

[PingSpike]

Nothing. Verizon wasn't rolling out shit. They keep advertising DSL, even though its barely available. "Its cheaper then cable" Great. It could be zero dollars for all I care, I can't get it, my parents can't get it, my wife's parents can't get it, my sister can't get it, etc, etc. I lived in the most populated area of Vermont up until last year, and I couldn't get DSL. I don't know this new company is, but they couldn't possibly do any crappier a job of rolling out DSL then Verizon was.

And fiber? Yeah right, they never even talked about that crap. That wasn't ever even brought up as a bullshit proposition.

At least the customer service couldn't possibly end up being any more incompetent and filled with endless department transfers.

Re:Co-ops

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Vermont already has CoOps and municipal internet. Burlington Telecom provides FTTP over which they serve voice, television, and data.

Re: FairPoint Station

[User 956]

Great! Now I'll have to go all the way to Fairpoint Station to pay my bill. That's way out in the boonies!

Not to mention you could be put on trial for humanity's crimes, by an omnipotent super-being.

Why is this assumed to be bad???

[WidescreenFreak]

If anything, this could make it that much better. Verizon ignored those area because they have a much higer density (therefore more potential customers per mile) in urban/suburban areas. Now with those people under a more local telecom, the company doesn't have to focus on anything but those local customers. And it's not like there's no competition. Satellite broadband is there, even though it's probably expensive, and who knows what kind of wireless broadband might be available. (I don't live up there so I don't know.) So, the new company should be far more aware of customer service than Verizon ever will be.

It's rather presumptuous to assume that the customers will be let out to dry just because the big, bad Verizon is leaving.

Re:Why is this assumed to be bad???

[spacefrog]

I've had Fairpoint in the past, and I feel sorry for these people. Where I used to live, here is what they charge. These people may not get it as bad, but Fairpoint and Value do not go together. $69 for 1.5/512. OUCH.

Re:Why is this assumed to be bad???

[bill_mcgonigle]

I've had Fairpoint in the past, and I feel sorry for these people. Where I used to live, here is what they charge [fairpoint.com]. These people may not get it as bad, but Fairpoint and Value do not go together. $69 for 1.5/512. OUCH.

I'm one of the affected Verizon customers and right now we pay $25 for 26.4. Kbps. We're not on the Verizon upgrade plan that runs through 2014.

Re:Why is this assumed to be bad???

[PingSpike]

At least they might actually get around to offering it, instead of just advertising the nonexistent product like Verizon was doing. I have cable where I live, but most of the state can't even get that. I think they'll be happy to have any sort of broadband option, even if it costs more. Like I said, Verizon DSL could be $0 for all I care...and I can't even get it so it doesn't matter!

Chode-munch

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...more options and better service...

You always have to be a smart-ass...

Generally speaking

[hypermanng]

Since it's far cheaper per customer to provide service to dense areas but existing laws are designed to equalize service costs to rural customers, the question is really about all sorts of legislative changes. For example, if current subsidies end, then the rural areas could become suddenly (more) unprofitable.

It's just as you say, but there's more than one way revenue in rural areas is legislatively unstable.

Personally, I think rural areas shouldn't be treated any different legislatively than anyone else. They'll pay higher costs (reflecting the highter costs of serving them) but since telcos can charge those higher rates without worrying about legislative interference, they'd be willing to roll out better services to anyone willing to pay the rural premium.

Re:Generally speaking

[whereizben]

It is true to an extent that they will be "willing" to roll out their services to anyone who can pay, but often times the premium is many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. I know this from the experience of living in rural VT and writing to Comcast to ask specifically about getting cable, which is run to about 1 mile from my house. They wanted $64,000 to run the line (which is buried here, sadly) to my house.

Re:Generally speaking

[AndyMcL]

Also, if we are going to do away with legislation, we should ask them to pay the 200 BILLION (!) in tax breaks/credits given to them (Verizon, SBC, Bellsouth) in the last 6 years or so to help with the build out. This is the last number I had heard, I assume it is actually larger as time goes on. So basically US tax payers paid for the FiOS infrastructure and now Verizon wants to just get the juiciest most profitable areas. I say sure, just pay your back taxes.

That 200 BILLION could have been much better spent making a national infrastructure that any provider can utilize. The idea of cable TV and telephone companies has passed. It is all data and services running over IP.

If the traditional telco's took money from us, then there should be some stings attached. If they try to renig on the deal, then pay the money back with penalties. It is the only way to keep them honest.

Government is supposed to look out for the best interest of citizens. If the regulations are too much of a burden and need to be removed, then do not come knocking asking for more handouts.

Re:Generally speaking

[Spazmania]

existing laws are designed to equalize service costs to rural customers

If the universal service fee applied to the delivery of any sort of telecommunications infrastructure service (instead of just POTS and POTS-related services), Verizon would fall all over itself to deliver FiOS to rural areas. Instead, the USF was shanghaied to pay for computers in rural schools.

So: congratualtions rural areas. You made us city folk pay for your kids' computers this past decade but you destroyed the USF in the pricess so now they get to sit and twiddle their thumbs while waiting for pr0n at 48kbbps.

Re:Generally speaking

[ncc74656]

I know this from the experience of living in rural VT and writing to Comcast to ask specifically about getting cable, which is run to about 1 mile from my house. They wanted $64,000 to run the line (which is buried here, sadly) to my house.

I'll admit I could be talking out my *ss here, but is there any reason why you couldn't get a few boxes of RG-6, some couplers, and some weatherproof tape, dig a shallow trench (should be able to rent something motorized to do that job without killing yourself), and put the cable in yourself? If you leave the cable company with just a few tens of feet to cover from the road to the cable you put in, they should be able to connect you for a hell of a lot less than $64k. You're probably still looking at a few hundred dollars for materials, but that's still a couple orders of magnitude lower than $64k.

I'm a current Fairpoint customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I am in rural Maine, Fairpoint is the only choice I have for phone service. DSL is slow and expensive, so I hope this means that I can get the same speed and price that my friends in Verizon territory can get.

hope they leave the rest of rual america alone

[schnikies79]

Verizon announced that they are finally going to offer DSL to all customers south of Indianapolis in Indiana. We have no option for DSL, FIOS, cable (TV or internet) or anything like that. DSL will be a welcome change but I doubt if a smaller company would have the capital to handle the setup. There is a lot of open area here. People are spread apart and don't really live in communities or subdivisions.

FIOS isn't even on the radar. The nearest FIOS option is Louisville, KY, about 30mi southwest.

Re:hope they leave the rest of rual america alone

[Anonymous Coward]

What? How far south of Indianapolis? You can get DSL in quite a lot of places. I'm confused. You say there are no other options?

Re:hope they leave the rest of rual america alone

[schnikies79]

I'm 3mi north of the Ohio river(in harrison country), so thats how far south. Verizon offers DSL to several major towns, but not to the rural community. Supposedly they are going to offer every single Verizon customer south of of Indianapolis DSL by the end of this calender year.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't

[pulse2600]

So explain this: people complain about Verizon in so many ways: big evil corporation, doesn't care about the customer, rapes you on unnecessary fees and services, crappy service, etc. Verizon gives up market share by selling their piece of the pie in a bunch of areas to a smaller company. So big bad evil company goes away, and now people complain that the little (well, smaller anyway) guy is back in town? WTF do you really want? Yes, yes I know, welcome to Slashdot....

Boy, I'm jealous!

[gstovall]

I'm also in a rural area, and my DSL service is 1.5Mbps/512Kbps for $80/month. And that's the ONLY alternative other than satellite available in the area. Service is rock solid, but it sure is a skinny pipe.

Re:Boy, I'm jealous!

[drinkypoo]

I'd pay $120 a month for that in my area with a smile on my face and a song in my heart given that it's $110 for hughesnet satellite which is 512kbps down, 128kbps up, and people who actually download things tend to be capped very quickly - because I can't get DSL or Cable. Learn to appreciate what you have!

Re:Boy, I'm jealous!

[gstovall]

Oh, agreed. I'm aware there are souls out there who have it worse than I do. There are folks here who are just a little too far from the POP and only have dialup (and satellite, of course) available.

My suburban coworkers on FiOS grin at my "skinny" pipe, though... :)

Satellite

[the eric conspiracy]

It's really the only proposition that works economically for remote locations. I used to live in central NY - one day I got a 'free cable installation' coupon in the mailbox so I called the cable company. They sent out a cable guy who looked at my end of the line two miles from the nearest neighbor electrical service and well we got an example of the meaning of ROTFL.

I've since moved away from that location and now live in the NYC metro exurb where I can get 30/5 cable internet. I'd bet the people who bought my previous home now have a satellite dish.

Re:Satellite

[drinkypoo]

Satellite is crap. The VSAT people give you like 3GB/mo. That's fucking worthless, I can't even use it for business two days a week with a three gigabyte cap. Skyblue has no capacity out here and hughes wants like $110/mo for their lowest level of service now, and I've heard from numerous people who have gotten capped on their service as well. Like it or not the satellites simply cannot handle a useful amount of traffic. It would be far more effective to just put up a bunch of autonomous wifi repeater blimps than to fuck around with all these satellites.

Maine's Governor comments

[markhb]

Maine Governor John Baldacci (D) has commented on the proposed selloff. As is his wont, the comment said absolutely nothing.

Re:Maine's Governor comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, well, he did say nothing. Basically, "Hopefully the regulations already in place will protect customers." But we already know that's unlikely.

Of course, most of these deals exist exclusively to circumvent promises & legal obligations. I wouldn't expect any new provider to do anything other than milk the current infrastructure until the last crackled piece of copper fails.

If so, I predict that the new owner will be constantly fighting customers and the law in the name of profits. Expect new services and quality improvements only when it is politically critical to the company's bottom line. In other words, senators can continue to get great service. Everyone else is hosed.

FIOS User

[madjalapeno]

We've had FIOS at our place in Southern NH for about 2 months now with Verizon and it works great. I just hope that we keep the same speed and price we are getting now as I was getting used to 15Mb download speeds. Had the same IP all this time which is a big relief as I had heard it was very dynamic. Hopefully this offloading will mean that they no longer block port 80.

Re:FIOS User

[xrayspx]

Verizon have been making a land-speed record (for them) getting FIOS across southern NH. They've been making a bee-line straight for my house for the last 6 or 8 months (Salem, Derry, Pelham, Hudson, Nashua, from what I understand) and now that they're almost at my door, it looks like they might stop?

I really hope existing customers don't lose their existing access, and I hope the timeframe for this is such that they might not immediately cancel all upgrades.

Since they're going to be the majority stakeholder in the new company, my guess is they have no interest in depriving you of service you've already paid for, more likely is that they don't want to solely front the cost of supporting and building out a relatively sparse area.

Re:FIOS User

[madjalapeno]

We are in Rockingham County, and one half of the town gets coverage, the other does not. It's worth the wait, I'm very pleased with it (although it does seem to loose it's DNS settings in the evening) and would be sad to see it go.

Re:FIOS User

[chrisgeleven]

Unfortunately FIOS never reached Manchester (biggest city in the state).

Oh what I would give for a little competition with Comcast...

Resistance to this idea

[nysus]

Unions are fighting this one because it will mean a further decline in wages in the industry if all those workers go non-union. That's bad for everyone if the rich keep getting richer. See http://stop-the-sale.org/ for their arguments.

Verizon Skating out on responsibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is crap. I'm not from one of these states, but I would guess that Verizon made agreements and postings allowing them to continue to charge their customers a higher rate, and perhaps even raised the rates to cover broadband deployment. They have done that in Michigan, and have still failed to meet those obligations. Meanwhile a lot of people probably have been paying more than they should to Verizon for a roll out that will never happen. A quick google turned out this filing: http://www.state.vt.us/psb/orders/2006/files/6959_ 7142fnl.pdf

Satellite's not all that great...

[Svartalf]

Latency's evil. Bandwidth's not all that great either. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharpened stick, but not by a lot.

Re:Satellite's not all that great...

[AntEater]

Satellite may not be great, but it's a LOT better than dialup which is my only other option where I live (very rural Vermont). I I do find it interesting that Verizon is trying to get rid of us. I feel like they've not had much interest in providing internet serivce out here so it's certainly no loss in my eyes. I've had satellite service with wildblue.net for almost a year now. I got tired of waiting for DLS or cable service which is still nowhere near reaching me. It is reasonable for my needs. I don't play on-line games so that's not a problem (but I'm sure it would be if I did). The latency, while far from great, is good enough that I can type over an ssh connection without going insane. I have a connection at my work which is almost 10 times as fast with low latency so I do know the difference.

Losing Verison is no loss.

What will happen? Nothing.

[NorbrookC]

With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?

FairPoint isn't a "small" telco, it's actually fairly big one, just not in the large Baby Bell category. The customers will get exactly the same service they have now - unfortunately. In my area, which is extremely rural, the company providing phone service has changed hands several times over the past decade. Each time, the same lines, the same services, and the same issues. It wasn't until two years ago that they finally decided to offer limited DSL service in this area. Yes, the 256K I spend an additional $30 a month on is is better than the 24K dial-up that's the other option, but it's not all that great a service, either.

I do understand that it's expensive to roll out fiber, particularly when you're talking running a line 20 to 30 miles between small population centers over a wide area. Which is why the rural areas are usually the last to see it, unless it gets mandated. Which is also why Verizon is so willing to dump a couple of states. It neatly avoids any mandates, and saves them a lot of money.

Re:Co-ops

[drinkypoo]

Last time I checked what they were trying to outlaw was not co-ops (a co-op is just a business that's held by the employees, which you can't make illegal without screwing up a lot of other bogus legal constructs that corporations use to deflect blame from themselves, or funnel money around) but government-operated ISPs. Anyone can start a co-op any time, and if you really want to change the world, you should do just that.

Meow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob Newhart over in Middlebury, Vermont can forget about ever getting Fiber service.

Hi. I'm Larry form L.D.&D. Telecom.

We at L.D.&D. Telecom are patently offended by your assertion and you will be hearin' form our legal beagle (as soon as he is finished chewin' my slipper). In achewal fact, my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl and I are very busily cuttin' down trees 'n' we kin ashure you that said trees will allow us to give the Inn in rural Vermont more Fiber service than a truckload of Metamucil.

Good day to you all.

Re:Meow!

[AKAImBatman]

Hi. I'm Larry form L.D.&D. Telecom.

So close. It would have been perfect if you'd written it as, "Hi. I'm Larry from L.D.&D. Telecom, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl." :P

Re:Meow!

[Anonymous Coward]

So close. It would have been perfect if you'd written it as, "Hi. I'm Larry from L.D.&D. Telecom, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl."

No, that would have been giving away the punchline.

enter in Clearwire/satellite internet

[Bananatree3]

Clearwire and its compatriots have huge potential markets in rural areas. Compare: crappy DSL at 768kbit/sec (or less) vs 1.5mbit clearwire wireless. Also, Satellite internet is always an option anywheres you are. You can usually speeds around 384kbit or so down and uplink for around 80$. Combine that with a good VoIP service, and voila! Instant internet/telephone from Nevada desert to Vermont backwoods.

burlington telecom, etc

[joetheguy]

In Burlington, Vermont's largest city, they already have a municipal fiber optic network.

The City of Burlington, like many other small cities and towns around the USA, has decided to ensure that all of Burlington's citizens and business have the up-to-date telecommunication services they need by building a municipally owned 21st century fiber optic infrastructure. http://www.burlingtontelecom.net/aboutus

Vermonters often prefer local smaller business, cooperatives, and the like, to the national chains and providers. They do an excellent job up there of doing things their own way. Having FairPoint instead of Verizon will hopefully mean a telco that will work more closely with local government to provide innovate services that reach everyone. The big telcos have fought against things like municpal networks in the past. I don't think they will be missed.

correction

[Bananatree3]

384kbit downlink, and a slower uplink. But, both through the dish

We'll continue not to get broadband

[vtcodger]

***With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?" ***

Rural customers in Vermont couldn't get DSL from Bell Atlantic. And they still can't now that the bills have a Verison logo on them. Oddly, they can get DSL from some of the smaller local providers -- notably Waitsfield Telecom which is pretty much the poster child for usable rural broadband for customers in its service area in the Central part of the state.

Unless the Vermont Public Service Commission suddenly grows some balls -- something they've never shown much sign of having -- I imagine that things will get worse, not better with this sale. The governor says that broadband is one of his priorities. But IMO he's a political hack -- mostly mouth. OTOH, occasionally I'm pleasantly suprised. Maybe Jim Douglas or the next governor or the one after that will take some meaningful action.

Re:We'll continue not to get broadband

[Radon360]

I wouldn't necessarily keep looking to the telcos for broadband access. It seems to me that there's an increasing number of options to the consumers, including more rural areas. If you can't get DSL, then what about cable (there's more of it strung up in the countryside than most people realize)? If you can't get cable, what about satellite? If satellite is too expensive, someone might be offering WiMax. I know where I live in semi-rural Wisconsin, there are several companies that have established a network of Motorola Canopy wireless broadband sites. If not that, check into Sprint/Nextel's 3G cards...about the same price as satellite, without the propagation delay.

I realize that low-end DSL rivals a good dial-up on cost, but one should realize that the more expensive broadband options are typically faster. The DSL that Verizon was offering in my area was 384kbps downstream for the $19/mo charge. Will that serve most people's needs? Maybe. If it will, then a ~56kbps dial would probably meet their needs, too. For a little bit more, I get 8Mbps from the cable company. I pay more than the DSL, but I also get quite a bit more in speed...particularly on upstream performance.

The way I see it, there's an emerging number of means of conveying voice/data available to the consumer...and it's already started reaching those in less populated areas through various wireless schemes. The paradigm shift from looking to the telcos for your voice/data needs to other providers has long since begun./P.

Re:We'll continue not to get broadband

[vtcodger]

***I wouldn't necessarily keep looking to the telcos for broadband access. It seems to me that there's an increasing number of options to the consumers, including more rural areas. If you can't get DSL, then what about cable (there's more of it strung up in the countryside than most people realize)? If you can't get cable, what about satellite?***

Good questions:

With a few exceptions cable coverage is even worse in Vermont than DSL coverage. Adelphia was supposed to string cable wherever they had (as I recall) 13 potential customers per mile of road. Didn't happen. Now that Comcast has taken over the bankrupt Adelphi operation (cause of bankrupcy -- run by crooks, not economic realities), I'm not optimistic that things will improve any. Yes there are some other cable franchises in a few towns. Not many.

Satellite is great for TV -- and, if anything, a bit cheaper than cable. That's one reason why cable doesn't go beyond the suburbs such as they are. (The big city -- Burlington -- has less than 40,000 people). Trouble is that satellites have problems with the quarter second round trip delay out to synchronous orbit that are difficult -- maybe impossible -- to overcome. You CAN surf the net via satellite, but I'm told that it's not always that happy an experience. When I looked into it for a rural school a few years ago, the technical problems for a bunch of users multiplexed onto an NAT router were VERY intimidating.

In theory, wireless is an answer. Two problems. First, the dot-com bubble burst before many wireless providers actually got on the air. It's not clear that the technology works satisfactorily even where the topography is favorable. Second, the topography in Vermont is not friendly to radio waves. Most people live in the woods in valleys. Cell phones are iffy in much of the state including major highways not all that many miles from population centers. I've gotten better and more consistent cell phone signals in the remote areas of the Great Basin than in Vermont.

How about broadband via power line? As far as I know, it works OK in demonstrations, but not all that well in reality. Lots of hype. Little reality.

We Americans have somehow gotten the idea that DSL is expensive to implement. I think we got that information from the big telcos -- which is a lot like getting information on global warming from Chevron. I'd ask two questions. How can Waitsfield Telecom provide DSL to a bunch of tiny towns -- most of which aren't big enough to rate a traffic light? (They are subsidized by the Universal Service Fund, but so are other rural customers). The second question is how Canada is able to provide DSL at reasonable rates to wide spots in the road in scattered across regions that make Tibet look like a teeming metropolis population-wise.

Verizon, OTOH, somehow can't get DSL to towns of several thousand that are less than a half hour drive from the corner of Church and Main in downtown Burlington.

Those Customers are Better Off Without Verizon!

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely detest Verizon and think those rural customers are fortunate to be losing Verizon's services.

I used to have DSL/Dish/Phone/Wireless phone through Verizon, and it was one of the worst experiences ever. The landline was barely audible and full of static. The dish technician was lazy and tried to convince me to cancel their service but "don't tell the boss" because he didn't want to run cable through a wall. Their tech support NEVER answers the phone, and when it does it automatically hangs up on you. "We're sorry, we can answer your call, please call back later..." or something to that effect. You can't imagine how angry that will make you after waiting twenty minutes on the line for an answer.

I have used three wireless phone companies; Cingular, Sprint, and Verizon. I never had issues prior to getting Verizon. Now, after living in two states and using three different phones with Verizon I can tell that in my opinion they have the worst wireless phone service ever. My phones with Verizon drop out at least twice a day. Sometimes the calls don't even go through, and others the person on the other end sounds like they have been smoking for 40 years.

I also have a nice Motorolla phone with Verizon, but it has been completely crippled by their firmware. The bluetooth is disabled so that I cannot transfer contacts via bluetooth. They also seem to have made it impossible to upload your own MP3s to your phone. Instead, you must purchase them via their site. Not to mention they charge you air time as well as a monthly fee for using the net. IMHO, they will do anything to get an extra buck from you without offering any benefit to the customer.

I would advise anyone thinking of switching to Verizon to think twice before doing so. Maybe my situation isn't standard, but look into their service on the web and/or talk to your friends first. When I see the "can you hear me now" commercials my blood boils.

I have shed the DSL/DISH/Phone service and am patiently waiting a couple more months for my wireless service contract to end so I can run to another, more reliable company.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a stable wirless phone carrier in the PA area?

Lucky Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

If it goes anything like here in Ks, those customers are very lucky.

Sprint sold off a large territory here to a Co-op telco. That little guy is bringing fiber to every rural home. This is mid-eastern Ks, so a house basically every mile. To start, they are offering phone, data at various speeds, and cable.

I just wish that Sprint would sell a little more because I'm just outside the area they sold. I have to live with my cable company and their crappy service.

Everyone else will pay

[supabeast!]

With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?

Our crooked semi-socialist government will do same thing for internet connectivity that was done for voice connectivity. Residents of rural America with cry and whinge about how it isn't fair that they don't get the same service everyone else gets, and demand that they get at the same price. Eventually one of their Congressmen will introduce a bill requiring phone companies to pool a portion of their profits and use it to supply broadband to needy people in rural areas. The phone companies will get their Congressmen to amend the bill to instead charge everyone in the country with internet access a monthly fee and that money will be used to provide broadband to the backward hicks who want to live in the middle of nowhere and still enjoy the comforts of civilization. And everyone in America will continue the slow grind towards our eventual slavery to the wants of others.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[schnikies79]

Not everyone who lives in a rural are is a "backward hick", not even close. I like living where I sit outside and watch animals walk through my backyard, or where I can pop out the telescope and not have to worry about light pollution. How about being able to grow my own vegetables and not be tied to the supermarket. Sorry, but nature > man made civilization.

In short, STFU.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the rural areas should just shut the water off to the big cities for a week as a test case and renegotiate the "socialist" water you receive at highly subsidised rates. How would you superior advanced urbanites like to pay
"what the free market will bear" for your tap water? Ten a gallon sound OK to you? Or do you have your own personal water well in the basement of your condo? Then the rural folks could afford some things better if we ended the urban socialist subsidy.. Oh, food? let's do the same with all the roads that bring you in the food, let's start and stop tolls at every property line. thinkl your chinese takeout will be so cheap then? Rail? Same deal. Your electrical supply? Runs on wires running on land seized from rural people, with no compensation to them at all, let alone any fair market rate. How about we just assume all that property is owned by rural people like it used to be and make your electricity company pay for transit, on an individual owner by owner basis. think you'll be running your oh so effin important "home theater and network" 24/7 anymore then? If you paid true free market rates,with no regulations and no socialist intervention, you couldn't afford anything past one 60 watt ligtbulb in your upscale uptown digs because it would quickly become a closed cartel for service.

Frankly, you are just a spoiled urban retard, an obnoxious drool, which unfortunately is too common in our society and which you can always see on slashdot when the rural connectivity issue comes up-yes, a combination of low IQ trying to cope with gross negligent ignorance at the same time- one of those who doesn't even have an inkling, not clue one, of how things work.

  I bet you think packaged groceries grow in the back of your local deli, that starbucks keeps coffee trees in their closet, and that your high score on some videogame simulator means you can now really operate a helicopter.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[supabeast!]

Not everyone who lives in a rural are is a "backward hick", not even close. I like living where I sit outside and watch animals walk through my backyard, or where I can pop out the telescope and not have to worry about light pollution. How about being able to grow my own vegetables and not be tied to the supermarket. Sorry, but nature > man made civilization.
 
In short, STFU. What you say makes it clear that you are, in fact, quite backward. You reject civilization, mankind's greatest achievement, so that you can sit among animals, dig in the dirt, and stargaze. Such a life is quite backward.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not describing semi-socialism. Sounds like good 'ol fashion pork and corporate welfare to me.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should us backwards hicks pay for problems in the inner cities, then?

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be really enjoying your smog filled air... urine filled alleys... gangs... pigeons... taxis... rats.. roaches... high prices...

I'll take the 20 minute drive to the grocery store and the complete lack of horns and sirens in the night... city life is disgusting.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Horseshit. Residents in rural areas will finally be allowed to roll out their own municipal-level high-speed connectivity (check out Burlington, VT, for instance) instead of having to bow to the corrupt monopolistic corporations like Verizon and their minions of lobbyists.

And everyone in America will continue the slow grind towards our eventual slavery to the wants of others.

Wake up. We're already slaves to the wants of others. It's called capitalism.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[Buelldozer]

THIS resident of "Rural America" would like you to know that Wyoming coal provides better than 30% of the electrical generation for the East Coast. Without the infrastructure necessary to support the mines and the people to work them how exactly would your precious city run?

You're a typical city dweller. You look down your nose at any one who lives outside the city but fail to realize that without us rural people your city wouldn't be possible.

You can't feed yourselves, you can't provide your own water, you can't generate your own power, you can't dispose of your own garbage, you can't supply yourself with the raw materials to build anything and you cry and whine for Government Aid whenever something happens (weather, terrorist attack, union strike, etc). Yet there you sit complaining about a "Socialist Government" and looking down your nose at US?

Mister without the support of a whole heckuva lot of "rural America" and the people who live there you'd be dead from starvation, disease, weather exposure or lack of materials.

Wake up and smell reality, we all need each other.

Re:Everyone else will pay

[cdwiegand]

And when that happened, you would find that no one would pay those "free-market" (not!) rates, and you wouldn't make any money. Oh, and then you wouldn't have electricity, as it has to be billed, managed, and distributed - that happens in the city. For that matter, organized government doesn't happen in the hick areas of any country - it happens in the city. Without cities, you have no hospitals, so the next time you try hammering a nail through your hand, deal with it instead of coming to our nice regional trauma centers. Cities also are responsible for fast, efficient money trade, people coming together to start new companies (just how many startups does your county hold? Try comparing that to Denver county!). Without the food distribution centers in the cities, moving food around becomes quickly disorganized and inefficient. And those roads you oh so lovingly would toll wouldn't be built, because roads lead to CITIES. Would you like to have an 18 wheeler driving down county road 10, a nice barely two way dirt road, just to deliver a basket of food here, another one in another mile? No? What, it makes sense for them to go to a common supermarket? Well, the same thing works on a macro scale - the cities are more efficient on a per-square-mile for just about anything other than growing food. There's a reason that the midwest is not the cultural, scientific, technological, or political capital of the US.

Verizon has gotten a lot better IMHO

[WidescreenFreak]

About five years ago, my first DSL company was Verizon, and I had a tech problem that I had to solve for them because they didn't do sh!t about it. So, I left. (I will admit, however, that the tech who installed the line recognized that I'm a geek and that I had a LAN in place, so he rigged up the outside box so that I didn't need any line filters in my house at all.) After going through a few other DSL providers who were either crap or gave up on DSL, I went to Comcast. God! What a mistake. Don't get me wrong, the speeds were exactly what they were supposed to be and I don't recall losing my connection once. My Internet series of tubes were unclogged, although DNS would get very slow every night at about 11:30 for some reason. But I got fed up with "Yes, we're going to give to 6 Mb down with up to 15 Mb burst speeds!" while giving a stranglehold of 256 Kb up at a higher cost than competitors.

I finally went back to Verizon DSL because of cost (US$29.95 for 3 Mb down, 768 Kb up) and I must confess that I never had a problem. I just got FiOS a few months ago (15 Mb down, 2 Mb up confirmed and consistent). The tech was very knowledgable, not only about installation but also in the various details about Verizon IPTV, which is not yet available in my area. Last week, Verizon recognized an accidental charge to my old DSL account, called us to let us know about it, and credited my account. And the one time that I had a problem (user account issue), they had it fixed over the phone in about two minutes.

Considering the bashing that Verizon normally gets on Slashdot, I felt that they deserved at least some credit for my experiences with them since I initially left. That doesn't mean that I'm a fanboy or that they can't piss me off enough to make me leave again, but credit where credit is due.

Now if Comcast would do the same

[mapkinase]

That would make me happy.

Half of the time I am getting 5Kb/s. That is cable for you.

Correction: Liberal States + Rural States

[N8F8]

Looks to me more like a list of rural states and states run by commie, leftist, reglation happy, business killing liberals from the population densities. You reap...

Re:enter in Clearwire/satellite internet

[ObiWanKenblowme]

I've been under the impression that the latency in satellite internet is too high to handle something like VOIP. Has the technology improved, or have I just been mistaken the whole time?

Monopolies in other countries

[mxpengin]

This is why, sometimes monopolies are something not so bad, it depends on the country where you live. Here in Japan NTT is a virtual monopoly for landlines, but I am in a semi-rural area and I have fiber-to-home.
In Mexico Telmex is also a virtual monopoly, the prices suck and the technology as well, but you can use DSL more less in all simu-rural areas.
Same policies for all the country. In general I hate monopolies but this is one of the few good points on them.

Re:Monopolies in other countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a monopoly doesn't guarantee broadband at all. I'd point at Kenya, South Africa and AT&T's monopoly in the US as example where that failed badly.

Japan may have decent connectivity, but it's not as good as South Korea where competition drives the prices down.

So what?

[raehl]

You know why they pay $69? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT COSTS!

It is a mistake to warp economics so that all customers pay the same price even though some customers cost far more to serve than others. If the telco company has to run and service two miles of cable to provide service to you but only has to run and service 100 feet of cable to provide service to me, you should pay more than I do.

Re:So what?

[AncientPC]

I'm not diagreeing with you that rural customers should pay more, but that's the difference between private and public companies. US Postal Service will deliver at a flat rate to Alaska / Hawaii despite losing money, while UPS / FedEx refuse to deliver or will charge higher rates.

Sometimes I wish there was a government broadband infrastructure in place in the US like Korea / China. They pay minimal monthly costs (even when compared to their relative salaries) for better access than I get for $55/mo.

Re:So what?

[spacefrog]

It COSTS $35.00 MORE to provide a 1.5 megabit line as it does to provide a 256Kbit line using the same technology? Really? What exactly are you smoking?

I never said everybody should pay the same, I said that Fairpoint has very high prices as opposed to their competition, even in the same area. Thankfully when I lived in their service area, I had the option of using cable for a fraction of the price, which I took advantage of.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to know that your conservative, free market thinking of today would not allow things like rural electrification and establishment of telephone services. So was the New Deal a bad thing in your history book?

Re:So what?

[kindbud]

It is a mistake to warp economics so that all customers pay the same price even though some customers cost far more to serve than others. If the telco company has to run and service two miles of cable to provide service to you but only has to run and service 100 feet of cable to provide service to me, you should pay more than I do.

And if the community where the phone company gets an easement for their lines doesn't like that policy, they can withdraw the use of public land for the private lines.

RIGHT?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOUD NOISES!!!

Re:So what?

[AK Marc]

It is a mistake to warp economics so that all customers pay the same price even though some customers cost far more to serve than others.

Not according to the economists that advised the government. What is the value of a telephone (presuming today's ubiquitous coverage)? Let's say it's $20 per line. Now, what's the value of the same phone line if 20% of the population, being in the high cost areas, were to elect to not have a phone? The value would decrease because fewer people could be reached. The maximum value for you, the person with the cheap service, is when you are forced to pay $2 extra to offset the $60 more it costs to provide a phone in the middle of nowhere. The economists determined the best value, even for the person that is paying into but not receiving the subsidy, is to have the subsidy.

But people that don't like the social implications will presume all the economists are wrong. That's the great thing about the "soft" sciences. You can always dismiss anything you don't like.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the telco company has to run and service two miles of cable to provide service to you but only
> has to run and service 100 feet of cable to provide service to me, you should pay more than I do.

And I'd be more than happy to pay it, if only I had that option. At the moment I am connected at 26.4Kbps. I live one mile off of the highway so I am one half mile too far out to get cable. The telephone switch is in the next town over. Both the cable company and Verizon have treated me like garbage. I have a nice, slightly secluded house so I'm instantly a buck toothed, moonshine brewing hick who deserves the fifty year old POTS lines that are my only connection to the outside world. (Don't tell me to get a satellite. With a 24/7 connection I can still download more on dialup than a FAP'd sat connection for a fifth of the price.)

If Verizon would sell of my area I would be delighted. Currently I'm fucked, so I don't see how it could get any worse.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're suggesting that because rural people would have to pay slightly more, they would rather just not have a telephone, and therefore the real value of urbanites owning a telephone would go down? That's absurd.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd hardly be economists advising the government if their advice didn't match what the government wanted to hear, now, would they?

So?

[Yurka]

So Verizon made a business decision which makes sense for them (unless their beancounters are terminally stupid). Most probably they consulted the myriad rules and regulations which our government put in their way, to make sure they are allowed to do that. Surely the /. crowd does not propose that we need to regulate them some more? If not, I don't see this to be deserving of more discussion than the crappy weather we've been having up here lately. It's part of natural environment: water falls from the sky, companies care about their bottom line.

Maine celebrates!

[emagery]

Well, this Mainer anyways. Verizon has been TERRIBLE... it is very hard to imagine anyone doing worse (though I suppose anything is possible)

Probably...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll hazard a guess here--because the only upshot of this is that they'll get rid of Verizon?

I wish they'd hurry up with the FIOS service. The US is getting so far behind these days...

Or you get two types of customers:

[xtype2.5]

Those waiting on a phone, those waiting on a dialtone!

Do rurals deserve to pay the same as citys

[Anonymous Coward]

to get telecoms that cost 10 times more to provide?
If so, do citys deserve to pay the same as rurals for housing and rent?

I am in a city...

[antdude]

... and I can't even get Verizon's DSL (20K ft. from CO) and FIOS. :(

We Get Screwed

[siuengr]

I live in one of those rural areas where AT&T sold off to CenturyTel, now DSL are double what they are from AT&T, and of course there is no way we are getting FiOS.

Obvious joke

[Baloo Ursidae]

Verizon: We never start working for you!

Where is FIOS available?

[Black Perl]

Has anyone seen a FIOS map? Verizon doesn't seem to have one on their site. I'd like to see where they currently have it, and ideally where they are expanding.

Re:Where is FIOS available?

[tedgyz]

I can't give you a map, but I know someone in Hudson, NH who just got it installed.

This makes me wonder if Verizon will continue to roll out FIOS in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Perhaps they are just giving up the copper-wire infrastructure. If so, that would be pretty sleazy. Sell off a low-margin business and then compete with it.

Want FIOS, give up your car and move into the city

[christoofar]

What... rip up the planet earth again to run a bunch of lines that barely will bring in enough cash to ex-suburbanites when they already have access to decent-speed broadband in most cases (or can get DirectWay).

e.g. my area:

If you really want FIOS real bad and want it now--you can move to Philadelphia and get it. It's going in the urban core and the inner suburbs... the outer McMansions in the country probably will never get it.

FTTP yeah right... not any time soon tfs

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon used to have a FTTP page... it's been gone a year or more the last I cared to check.

4 years ago they were telling the community of Sun Prairie, WI (a Verizon home base where oddly, you can only get Verizon as a phone provider for local carrier) that FTTP would be there very soon, they were testing it in Texas blah blah blah

5Mb up/5Mb down was touted by their technicians blah blah blah
I had a fiber terminal less that 1200 feet from where I lived blah blah blah so exciting blah blah blah
$34 a month + whatever Verizon charges in extortionist fees
      ( $125 a month for a land line, which, when stripped down you could only get to $60 for just a land line w/ no long distance! )
      ( DSL without a 2 year contract cost $39.99 a month! )

Co-ops are the solution

[MCRocker]

a small company like Fairpoint is going to have to focus on the customers they've got. Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.

It's interesting that you mention Co-ops. I've heard/read good things from people who have Co-op telecom providers.

It seems to me that we could eliminate many of the 'Big Telco' problems that people complain about by simply making the only part of the system that is a monopoly be the connection between the Central Office and the end user and then run this part of the system as a co-op. Everyone could then choose who their regional, long distance, internet and cable providers who would only have to duplicate services up to the central office. The only place were a monopoly makes sense is in the last (few) mile(s) where it wouldn't be practical to have competing services. Everywhere else in the system, allowing competition would work just fine... especially since they wouldn't necessarilly have a captive audience that they could force to do things their way.

"We're the one for you, New England..."

[MS-06FZ]

We're the one for you, New England, Fairpoint Telecommunications...

Nope, doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

It's because

[kilodelta]

Verizon is hurting. It costs more to provide service to rural areas than it does to provide it in urban areas. Has to do with outside plant and equipment costs.

Add the fact that Verizon has lost approximately 1/3 of their urban business testifies to the fact that they're not exactly a stable company. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I always said that Verizon et al wanted to live by their tariffs, well they can die by them too.

Goodbye Service!

[buka1337]

For those who know nothing about FairPoint Communications. Their strategy is to buy up markets that no one else wants to serve and operate them for as cheaply as possible. Quality of Service will not go up...it will go down in a huge way. I work in one of their tech support call centers. We used to be their exclusive tech support for all of their subscribers, however their service was so bad it was costing us money since we have a standard monthly billing, we ended up telling to them to take a hike. One market had about 60% of their subscribers calling in every month. Every time it rained everyone lost sync on their modem. That properties' tech support has been outsourced overseas. The worst Fairpoint property my company still handles has 976 subs. We plan for 390 of those calling in each month. Our overall average for Fairpoint companies is about 25% of their customers calling in for internet support each month.

Re:Goodbye Service!

[Vidar Leathershod]

Ah! I think I know some of you guys. I had to call at times on behalf of my customers in the Taconic area. You guys were pretty competent. Recently, after Fairpoint installed a "Barracuda" in the area, all of my customers who had ISP mail accounts stopped receiving most mail. They were told repeatedly by support that their clients were set up incorrectly, that their firewalls were blocking it, etc. I stopped at the first customers place, ran some tests, everything looked ok. I called support and asked for the webmail address, which I wanted to confirm was ispcontrolpanel.com. He told me that was not the place to go. He started looking up the correct webmail address, and starts to read to me "Go to www.isp... oh yeah! ispcontrolpanel.com!". I was like, "Holy crap! This guy is dumber than a box of rocks". So I go there, no mail there, and no spam control settings. I say to him, "Is there some other site to go to for spam filter management". He didn't know. I start poking around, and find that on the local isp's home page there is a new login section for spam control. I log in, and it's a Barracuda. And it has blocked everything. Doesn't matter how unspam-like.

Ended up whitelisting the customers contacts, and referring them to that section for further action. Didn't bother telling the tech support guy that he should know what equipment the customer needs to deal with, and the answer shouldn't just be "turn off your firewall." I figure Fairpoint never let the Tech support people know, so the blame is like 60/40.

In any case, I never had problems like that when I think you guys were handling the support. Except that customers couldn't get their passwords from you, and after hours customer service was closed.

Re:Goodbye Service!

[buka1337]

Well...we do the best we can. If the tech you are calling says he doesn't know something....well its cuz the net admins ignore our requests for information and more often then not we find out things by trial and error. I know this sounds VERY BAD, but for some areas of FP serves all the info we have on modem configuration is this...."whatever is in the modem is probably right". escalate if the customer reset the modem. isn't it nice that the people we work for won't give us enough information to even do our jobs.

Re:Goodbye Service!

[Vidar Leathershod]

I've seen this in action, when FP decided to change some accounts (not all) to a different form of PPP (I think PPPOA VCMUX), and "forgot" to change some of the modems. It was like a giant guessing game for who had what.

If you were the guys handling this area 1 year ago, then I don't think this tech works for you, unless he is an anomaly. He really lacked basic knowledge.

Re:Want FIOS, give up your car and move into the c

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is it available in Philly?

I live in Philadelphia (7 blocks from city hall in case you were wondering) and we keep wondering when Verizon will roll out fiber. It is too expensive to run the block by block cable in urban areas. The big V is making the easy money in the suburbs right now. Who knows when it will get to urban areas.

Big chains like Best Buy and Ikea do the same thing; they position in the suburban markets and only look elsewhere when the market is saturated. If you live in one of the outer suburbs, I am willing to bet you will get it before me.

The hills aren't alive with the sound of 802.1.1g?

[perfessor multigeek]

I knew folks in Montpelier and Plainfield who were talking about some sort of cantenna-based telco coop way back in the late nineties. Did that ever get attempted? Do you think that it will now?

Why not run your own damn line?

[perfessor multigeek]

I've wondered that for years. Or, maybe even better, put up a cantenna on a pole by the road and another at your house.

Re:Why not run your own damn line?

[ncc74656]

I've wondered that for years. Or, maybe even better, put up a cantenna on a pole by the road and another at your house.

That might work if all you want is data. You'd need to get power to the AP, but since they usually pull no more than a few watts, a solar panel and a battery could work for that. For TV, though, you still need a cable run (unless you want to put something like a MythTV backend with some tuner cards out by the road, and then you'll need even more power to run that).

Several problems

[hypermanng]

To some extent it's true that it just takes more work to deliver that sort of stuff to a rural residence. In that respect, one must pay for the inefficient use of infrastructure in low population density areas. For that I can offer no apologies (nor, I suspect, do you expect one)

That said, legislative distortion of the rural service market means that some service is underpriced (relative to the total expenditure necessary to deploy it) and the remaining services aren't viable for wide rollout because they have to compete with the underpriced service. Thus, provision expenses of other services have far fewer heads across whom to share the cost as well as no economies of scale*.

Add to that the fact that companies would likely try to find clever ways of providing service that are more appropriate for rural areas if, once again, they didn't have to compete with the regulation-favored (and possibly subsidized) entrenched (haha! punny!) services.

Overall, it's much more cost effective for telcos to lobby government for favorable legislation (and position themselves to protect against unfavorable legislation for which their strategic enemies lobbied) than it is to focus on competing for your dollar.

*Here I'm referencing the fact that the cost they quote you is probably inflated by at least 50% by the fact that they have to no installation workforce and equipment already allocated to that area. Developers find building a bunch of houses in the same area at the same time much cheaper than one-offs for the same reasons.

Verizon POLICY is to be unethical.

[perfessor multigeek]

Look up a few posts to the two hundred billion dollars in government money that Verizon and friends got from the government for promising to do just exactly what they're now weaseling out of doing. Note, btw, that they still own the majority of Fairpoint so this is all handwaving beynd a certain level. But, as was pointed out a little further up, it is a very effective way to avoid having to kep their promises.

Verizon gets vast favors from government, many of them on the grounds of being the carrier of last resort. Always has. And then they turn around and walk out on any customer who isn't high profit enough. They steal and lie. And they do it with our money.

Now, as for me, I signed up for unlimited service with them a few years back. Y'know, service that is, urm, not limited. I was very very clear with every person I dealt with at Verizon that I needed the full plan and was willing to pay the full price. Y'know, about a hundred bucks a month, unlimited long distance to the U.S. and Canada. As /.ers know, I'm a chatty guy, so I go out of my way, over and over and over to confirm this plan.
So Verizon then bills me the full "retail" rate for all of my calls to Canada, which, given that I'm on the phone for a long time working on projects together combined with their charging me over a dollar a minute means that they have been billing me for years for EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS for money that I don't owe. So far the best response I've gotten from them is an offer to split the difference. WTF?

A.) Part of the reason that I was so careful is that this is the third time that they've tried this with me. Twice before it was with a cellphone account.
B.) They keep "losing the records", "forgetting" to transfer files, rescheduling reviews because they have previously routed me to the wrong kind of account person, and on and on. Funny how their system worked just fine until they were trying to screw me.

and the real biggie
C.) This is not random. I did some asking around. They wanted to make me miserable. They do this on purpose. Y'see, customers like me cost them a fortune. By staying on one call for three or four hours I tie up a connection and like banks, they get their profits by only having enough resources to deal with most customers at any given time not asking for what they pay for. I found a guy in a position to know who admitted that telcos actually pay MBAs to design plans to find customers like me and then make us miserable enough to leave, thereby letting them promise something but not have to deliver it. After all, actually keeping those much publicized promises is contrary to maximizing short-term profits and that is all that really matters.

If they would just be honest and not take taxpayer money for plans they don't intend to carry out and take customer money for services they don't intend to provide then sure, let them pay back what they've stolen and scammed and we'll go our merry separate ways. But until then we will stay pissed.

Understand?

You could have FTTP

[symbolset]

But the National Conference of State Legislatures is against federal standards on the issue.

And Municipal Broadband seems unpopular with states.

There is faint hope for an opportunity in the Senate Communications Act of 2006 on page 184 of which I find:

''(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.--No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider.

There is no way the communications giants would let that pass.

Unions ARE the problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think your phone and DSL bills are so high? It isn't the 4,000 managers, it is the 60,000 union members with so-so skills taking home $70K per year, fantastic medical, HUGE pension plan and free phone service and 30% off all other offerings. The loaded cost of a tech is around double their pay when you add benefits. Overtime is 2x and 3x for overtime on holidays.

Thank you unions. Good work if you can get it.

My sister is in the CWA http://www.cwa-union.org/ and works for a telecom/RBOC. Everything is great except she can't get better vacation days until someone else dies or retires. Her winter vacation period begins the week after Thanksgiving (Monday) and she's been working there for almost 15 years. I'd hate to see when the new folks get their vacations!

Well, either it is the union at fault or she simply doesn't want to see the rest of the family. The more I think about it, that MUST be it. Way to go CWA!

Nobody is paid what they are worth, but unions make everything cost more and teach employees not to work outside their specifically documented tasks. They sap the initiative from otherwise smart, capable people who would otherwise climb the management ladder and provide tremendous innovative ideas to serve customers and more efficiently provision new telecommunications technology.

Verizon FIOS Pullout

[Thomas Charron]

That explains why they completely pulled out of the FIOS installs in New Hampshire. They where half way thru Nashua when they suddenly stopped doing new installs, and left over half of Nashua unupdated.

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[tedgyz]

Then how come they just installed it for someone I know in Hudson, NH?

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[Thomas Charron]

Depends on where they are I suppose.

Southern Hudson?

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[tedgyz]

I guess I would say Southern Hudson, but I can't see how that matters. I've never even heard of someone segregating Hudson in North or South, and I've lived in the area my whole life (40 years).

In any case, if Verizon is pulling out of NH, why would it matter? Is because they are going to keep FIOS in ME/NH/VT and just bail on the copper wires?

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[Thomas Charron]

My understanding is they are selling the whole thing. Since they where getting rid of it, they didn't want to invest as much cost into upgrading existing locations to be able to support FIOS. Southern sections of Hudson interlink their lines to South Nashua, which had it's CO upgraded. Centeral and Northern Nashua didn't get upgraded, and can't currently support FIOS. If they where up by the Nashua Bridge, I'd doubt they'd be able to get FIOS, but down by the past the new bypass bridge, they could.

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[tedgyz]

Ah! You are well versed in this topic. Yes - she is closer to the South bridge, near Wason Rd.

So I live in North Nashua off Exit 6. Am I outside the FIOS area? Is there any telltale sign of FIOS "wiring" (what is the term - glasspacking)? Orange cable wraps? :-)

Re:Verizon FIOS Pullout

[Thomas Charron]

Honestly, no idea. Best to cal them directly, or I think use their online 'are you eligible' site.

Might Be For the Best

[Ponter Boddit]

As a former FairPoint customer in Maine (I recently moved), I can tell you that service will improve. I lived in the sticks (sorry, Liberty), but I still had a great DSL line from FairPoint. It was a bit pricey (@$50), but considering the problems of delivering high-speed internet to a relatively small number of customers, I didn't feel I could complain. I still think they should lower prices, though. Not to say that FairPoint didn't occassionally try to pull something sleaszy -- hey, it's a telco -- but basically I had good luck with them. As for cell phone service, that DOES suck in rural Maine.

Re:What happens? Can't be worse!

[Sparkle]

Yes almost every month Verizon offers me DSL. Then they blow smoke about FIOS and tell me they are my "broadband and entertainment company" and when I say "Sell me some!" they always, always say, "Sorry it is not available in your area at this time."

Our service was a lot better before Verizon bought Continental Telco. Contel actually improved the infrastructure. Verizon soaks up millions of "Universal service fund" fees purportedly to improve rural service and does nothing to improve it. NOTHING!

For one I cannot wait. It will be great if they would sell my rural exchange because I know it will be a cold day in hell before they will sell me the broadband they claim to offer.

Did I mention how many days it takes to get a broke line fixed on Verizon?

So much better in Rural Illinois...

[jashbrook]

I have Verizon phone "service" in rural central Illinois. It's an old GTE network, I believe. You guys are worried about DSL? I can't even get CallerID!
Lucky for me that I have a local ISP providing 3Mb/s 802.11B off of a nearby antenna tower for me and a couple of neighbors.

Transcript of typical phone service call:
VZ: Go outside to your NIB.
ME: I don't have one.
VZ: Everyone has one.
ME: You said you won't install one unless there's a problem.
VZ: Oh, you have to call someone else.
ME: What about my lack of phone service?
VZ: Well, it's probably inside the house and we'll charge you.

VZ (Other people): We won't install a NIB unless you're having a problem. Are you having a problem?
ME: No, they seem to have fixed it.
VZ: Sorry...

Re:So much better in Rural Illinois...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I know someone in a similar situation - how far away is the antenna tower and does this work well for you? I've been wondering if there was some way people in rural areas could network by each having one of the off the shelf cheap wireless gateways (with someone on the periphery having adsl/cable/whatever) and relaying to the nearest neighbours... but I'm not a wireless networking guy so I don't really know how feasible that is... anyone know?

You must be thinking of some other company

[Vidar Leathershod]

At least around here, Fairpoint has incredibly slow speeds for very high prices. In those areas where they have a "natural monopoly", they offer 768/256 for $45/month, or 1.5/512 for $99/month. Right down the road, in the next town over, you have a choice between Verizon, One Communications, or the cable company. Verizon is $39 for 3.0/768, One Communications is $35 for 5.0/768 or so, and the Cable company is $50 for 3.0/256.

Fairpoint is nothing more than a conglomerate company, formerly MJD, that buys small telcos, and "consolidates" them, keeping the names as a shell to make people think they still have a local phone company. There is less service, their technical support (outsourced) doesn't even know the equipment they are using.

So before you go assuming that smaller companies=better service, you may want to consult some of Fairpoint's customers. Fairpoint has lost business in the areas where people had a choice, which is probably why they sold their long distance business customers to Choice One (now One communications) a few years ago.

Ahhh Verizon....

[laing]

FiOS became available to me last month. I obtained an appointment for installation after carefully reading their terms of service and FAQs.
The Verizon FAQ says (under the BILLING FAQ!); "Please note: Current Verizon Online DSL customers who move to FiOS Internet service will have their Verizon Online DSL permanently disabled after their FiOS conversion." I wasn't worried because I have a Covad SDSL connection which uses a different copper pair than my POTS line.
Just to make sure that things would not be disturbed, I checked with my ISP. They informed me that there was a 100% certainty that Verizon would destroy the copper plant leading to my residence. I checked with Verizon and they "could not guarantee" that they would not destroy the leased lines.
Needless to say, I cancelled my installation appointment. I wish that somebody would sue them for anti-trust or for establishing a monopoly. Their FiOS service is only available to people who exclude any possibility of EVER being able to switch to a competitor.

Verizon sucks

JSL

Get off of my cloud!

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Careful...
I'll have you know that rural areas do have governments. The governments they have may be disorganized, but it's still government, and some of us don't want overly organized government.
There is such a thing as a rural city. Too far from the big cities to be a suburb, too small to be a "real" city, but neccesary enough to exist. Rural cities pop up near power plants, tourist traps, state colleges, grain elevators, large parks, and gas stations. (It may be flyover country, but the 18-wheelers can't fly over...)
Rural cities have many of the amenities of larger cities, albeit on a smaller and less efficient scale. They have banks. They have small businesses; if there are no Wal*Marts, then they are forced to have small businesses. If there are no Wal*Marts, then there will be a little supermarket. The larger rural cities might get a health clinic. Rural cities may even have their own electric companies and their own--how shall I say this?--telcos.
True cities are more efficient, and I like true cities, but efficiency isn't everything. And face it, somebody has to do the farming.
I warn you--there may be more people in flyover country than in the cities. It's the simplest way to explain the last few elections.

Goes with the territory

[Dave Emami]

Most likely it will wind up costing them more, but that's just one of the costs of living in a more-rural area, the same as traffic congestion (the automotive kind) is one of penalties you pay for being a big city dweller. I have (probably) a better selection of shops and restaurants than they do. They have better air quality and easier-to-buy houses than me. Wherever you go, you pay for the pluses with minuses.

Bigger == Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for AT&T now that they bought out Cingular. They are touting all sorts of lame new price plans like total in-network calling. Sure if you want to call someone else that uses AT&T that seems great but I hate discounts where you don't know how much you're paying on every call. And they're getting rid of some of the better other features Cingular had for saving money. They don't even let you bundle CallVantage (VoIP) with your mobile phone instead of having to have a landline. Sucks if you live in an area where AT&T doesn't do your landline.

Phone plans suck. They constantly charge me as much or more as my oldr plan for what I already had. Seems to me that's the price for letting a couple big companies eat up the entire market. A few years ago Internet on my phone was free and I could browse the web and send/receive instant message and email for free. Now with most plans you have to pay for it all or really work at bypassing the built-in programs.

It doesn't cost them anything significant for calls to actually take place so I think they need to just create an unlimited plan. It doesn't even have to be cheap. It'd simplify everything greatly and probably end up saving them money as they'd have to spend a lot less money explaining to customers what their options are, simplify training their staff, simplify the technology involved, etc. Just make things easy. If Vonage can offer unlimited calls for $25 a month I don't see why AT&T can't. Hell, they have 160 million subscribers so they don't even have to pay anyone else for sending the call off network most of the time.

The only nice thing I can actually say about Cingular is that they do make an effort to make their customer support smooth and easy for customers. Now if they'd just do the same with their price plans.

Venezuela's left switch vs. Verizon's plans?

[courcoul]

Will Hugo Chavez' stated goal of dragging Venezuela into a socialist/communist 'heaven' alter Verizon's focus and plans of dumping "low profit" rural business?

After all, he has stated that amongst the first steps he plans to take is expropiating/nationalizing the phone company, which is owned by Verizon (first financial hit) and we know how dictator wannabes never pay fair or full market price for the stuff they appropiate (second financial hit).

Or is the Venezuelan telco small peanuts to Verizon's global interests?

Will this include my area? Please?

[jonadab]

I would dearly love to have the option to buy local phone service from a company that isn't Verizon. The phone service around here has really gone into the toilet ever since GTE North was bought out by Verizon. I don't like the games Verizon plays with customer service. According to the Verizon repair dude that came out to my house, the static sounds we have been hearing on all the phone lines around here, which get worse with every passing rainstorm, are not "noise". Those are "silent line", and are what a phone line is normally supposed to sound like. "Noise" is another variety of sound, which we don't hear on our phone lines, because they are in perfect working order.

Then there's the question of billing. Verizon takes their sweet time getting the bill to you, up to three weeks after the end of the month, and then expects it to be paid by the end of the following month -- just a few days after you finally get the bill. That's just not right.

And then of course there are the hoops you have to go through when you call them for any reason (whether for customer support of the fix-my-line variety, or for billing support, or to cancel an account, whatever). A lot of large companies have that, but still, that doesn't mean customers like it.

I don't know much about FairPoint, but if they're *not* Verizon, then that's a point in their favor as far as I'm concerned.

I actually had to discontinue use of a local phone line (which I was using for dialup) because it got so bad it was unusable, and I couldn't get Verizon to fix it. I had to go out and buy cable modem service from Time Warner, which wasn't a comfortable thing for me to do, given my views of them as a company and of their television business in particular. Granted, I've not been dissatisfied with their cable internet service. On the contrary, it's been great. Still, I'd like to have another option available, just in case I should ever _become_ dissatisfied for any reason. Currently, I don't have any other option at all; if I want internet access, it's Time Warner or nothing, or I can move to a different community.

So I'd be very excited to see Verizon sell our area to a smaller company.