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.

Comments

Posting my trouble ticket here

[genner]

Posting my trouble ticket here where it will be read by verizon tech's quicker than staying on hold with them for the next century.

Can't loop the smart jack on circuit 36.QGDQ.684591..CD LC 703/26

Come on fix it....replaceing f2 pairs can be fun...come on guys.

Valid, I think

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

[drinkypoo]

Yep, reminds me much of ... every frickin' corporate job. The "can't be fired" comes from managers protecting their sycophants (or family, or co-conspirators, etc), and the people who actually do the work are not the one who get rewarded for having done it. (With rare exceptions.)

While you have a valid point, my argument is not that such things never happen outside of a union shop, only that the prevalence is increased, and your attempt to place unions and corporations into some kind of false dichotomy has been noticed and is not appreciated.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it.

Try this reality kool-aid for a change... you'll start noticing how much of what you've been told is propaganda in support of the corporate powers-that-be.

Look, this is based on direct observation, so why don't you take your patronizing attitude and blow it out your ass? I've worked in union shops (luckily, in a non-union position) and I've worked in non-union shops, and I've seen what I've seen. The plural of anecdote is not data, but every time I see a union do anything, I see certain people at the top taking advantage of the people below them in the union, and I see the union used to protect people who do not do their job from being terminated.

Is it okay for a manager to protect someone who doesn't do their job? Of course not. Is it okay for a union to do the same thing? Of course not. And the fact that managers do it doesn't excuse the fact that unions do it, or the other way around. It's all bad.

Don't try to distract people from my message with misdirection. As you can see from sibling comments, it's already failed.