Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Accused of Slighting Copper Infrastructure
High Fibre writes "Regulatory hearings in Virginia raise questions about Verizon's stewardship of its copper infrastructure, with workers accusing the telecom of cheaping out on maintenance in Virginia due to its preoccupation with its FiOS network. Ars covers the fracas and gives more time to Verizon than the local media do. From Ars: 'During testimony given before the Virginia State Corporation Commission last week... workers painted a dire picture of the state of Verizon's copper network, saying that the equipment required to make repairs — including tools and cable — is not even available.' Verizon disagrees, saying that while it's a challenge to manage and maintain both networks, they are not neglecting their copper infrastructure." A union official gave written testimony about the Verizon problems, presumably so that individual workers would not have to testify in public and open themselves to retribution.
From a few links in the Ars Technica posting of this story, this seems to be essentially correct. The Telecom worker union does copper (and the workflow involves 4 of their workers at different levels to provision/change lines), while the fibre workers, while unionized (apparently), are a different union group, with a different job description/position, and involves less workers for provisioning.
Verizon has been granted a monopoly on copper as long as they serve as a common carrier. If they are diverting funds from maintenance of their common carrier network to installation of selectively-installed FIOS, then they are violating common carrier rules.
The net effect here is that people in poor areas face degraded service while people in wealthy, high-density areas have enhanced service and options. This is exactly what common carrier status and state funding of telecomm was supposed to avoid.
Verizon should be forbidden from doing anything other than POTS (and DSL, provided they provide equal access to it, unlike the current situation). Let another company run fiber and operate a network over it, Verizon should not be allowed to run competing services when doing so violates their common carrier status.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The problem is that they're not just letting copper go by the wayside where they're installing FiOS, they're letting copper go down the tubes (so to speak) everywhere - even where they have no real plans to install fiber. Fiber is expensive and they are cherry picking the hig-density, high disposable income areas. To fund this expansion of service, they are shorting funds to maintain copper to the rest of the area.
Now, that's all fine and good - I can always switch to any of a number of other telephone carriers who do a better job of maintaining my phone service. Oh, right - I can't because Verizon has a de facto monopoly on telco services in my area - much of it due to government regulation and exclusive rights.
That's the problem with the infrastructure being run by for-profit corporations - there is effectively no competition. Between rights of way, exclusive rights for areas, and a century of stacked up regulations the barriers to entry are insurmoutable for all but the most dense, wealthy areas of the country. Were I king, I would separate the infrastructure from the services. Sadly, I'm not (as I hear it's good to be the king). It would not solve all the issues, but it would at least start down the road of reducing the anticompetitive behavior of the incumbent utility operators against data (and power) providers which do not own infrastructure.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's because Unions reward mediocrity.
I know someone who left here to go work in a union shop. He ended up coming back because the idiot who couldn't do shit and has a whopping year's seniority can't be fired (even though he is useless) so an idiot who doesn't do shit makes more than he was going to, ever.
It's also because unions are often famously controlled by organized crime.
Basically, there were two ways we could have gone to protect the rights of workers; co-ops and unions. But it's too hard to take over, control, and wield the power of a co-op, so unions it is.
I'll take you seriously when you're working for a democratic co-op. Unions are parasitic. They are better for the individual worker, but worse for the economy; co-ops would have been better for everyone but we're not there and probably never will be.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For me personally, it is a friend whose family was threatened because he didn't use union laborers. After the brick through the window, he relented and hired a waste of life to stand there and do nothing, just so he could say he'd hired union. After that, the threats stopped.
I'm not accusing you of such tactics, but don't deny that unions are full of thugs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Now there's a knowledgable, unbiased, accurate source. Are contract talks coming up soon?
I'd trust anyone working out in the field compared to the suit and tie CEO who would could only be dragged into the trenches for photo-ops.