Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Copper Cutoff Traps Customers

Posted by kdawson on from the my-way-or-the-dirt-path dept.

theodp writes with more mainstream attention to an issue discussed here a month back: "As it hooks up homes and businesses to its FiOS fiber-optic network service, Verizon has been routinely disconnecting the copper infrastructure that it was required to lease to other phone companies, locking customers into higher broadband bills, eliminating power outage safeguards, and hampering rivals. A Verizon spokesman argues customers are being given adequate notice of the copper cutoff, which includes this read-between-the-lines fine print: 'Current Verizon High Speed Internet customers who move to FiOS Internet service will have their Verizon High Speed Internet permanently disabled after their FiOS conversion.'" Customers are supposed to be informed by both the sales person and the installer that their first-mile copper will be cut, and this is not happening.

6 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Makes me wonder by Meor · · Score: -1, Troll

    This constant trumpeting of how terrible Verizon is makes me wonder what Slashdot editors have to gain through constantly posting these articles. Every other story posted here has some sort of editorial ulterior motive but I haven't been able to figure out the motive for hating Verizon yet. Any thoughts?

    1. Re:Makes me wonder by encoderer · · Score: 0, Troll

      1. Public-Funded copper? Huh? The copper wasn't run with public money. It was run by Verizon and its corporate ancestors. It was, however, heavily regulated as public infrastructure, and rightly so, but that regulation didn't occur until well AFTER the hundreds of millions (billions?) spent running the stuff.

      2. Monopoly pricing is not "always ridiculously high." You're wrong about that. It CAN BE, but it's not "always." Such a statement is silly to even try to make. You have to prove that every monopoly price-gouges for your statement to be correct. I only have to demonstrate a single one that doesn't to prove you wrong. Here you go: USPS. It's a public company, and it still has a monopoly on letter carrying. DHL/FedEx/Etc cannot compete in that segment. Here's another: Amtrak.

      3. Your stupidity about this astounds me. It's just this simple: If we put copper-esque regs on Fiber at this point, NO FIBER WILL BE RUN. It would be a disservice to the shareholders of Verizon to spend BILLIONS to roll out fiber networks that its competitors can immediately use "against" them. This would be the stupidest move imaginable for a corporation. You either need a gov't subsidy to build the network, or you need to give Verizon say 5, 10 years to run the network exclusively to recoup their costs, much like the patent period on a new drug.

      And about that -- I'm not a fan of the effects of pharma patents, but the same business case is true: For a company to invest that kind of $ it needs some incentive. I'm a fan of the John Edwards proposal to eliminate pharma patents and, in their place, give companies a cash reward for new drugs.

      It's really simple, folks: If you want PRIVATE CORPORATIONS to develop for the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you need to either give them fair financial incentives. This can come in the form of exclusivity or a public "bounty" or whatever. But it's JUST NOT RIGHT to ask a PRIVATE ENTITY to spend its own money only to have their PRIVATE ASSETS socialized for the benefit of the people. This is EXACTLY THE SAME as the government forcing you to open your home to, say, quartered troops, or forcing you to feed any homeless people in your neighborhood or forcing you to let the poor couple down the street borrow your new car for a couple hours a week. A corporation is a private entity, just like you and your household. It's easy to demonize corporations--ESPECIALLY VERIZON--but you can't just make laws that apply to "bad" corps and not "good" corps.

      This is about private property rights.

  2. Who is going to? by everphilski · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously? I have not had a land line in five years - and the three years I had it before that was because the dormitory I lived in provided it for free. Cell phones and VoIP are making POTS a thing of the past.

    And yes, yes, I know the rural communities don't have good cell coverage and VoIP due to shitty internet connections ... (I grew up in the rural Midwest) but then again, their copper isn't threatened, is it?

  3. Re:Verizon has learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...sounds like George Bush. I wish I could get my sentence commuted after committing a felony crime.

  4. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    *General message to Verizon* Please come and rape my copper and lock me into your FIOS service!! I beg you!!! My life for you!!

  5. YOU should be modded down then? by encoderer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Since your belief is that misinformation should be modded down, then you should be petitioning moderators to knock YOUR post back to 1, shouldn't you?

    The congress hasn't given a DIME to telcos to roll-out fiber. Some STATE governments have, but not federally. So if STATES want to regulate how their money is spent, fine, but the Feds should stay out of it unless they want to give a NATIONAL rebate to these companies.

    And as for all this "The gov't paid to roll out copper." As far as I know, nobody has been paid taxpayer dollars to roll out copper since THE GREAT DEPRESSION. True, they did roll out some ridiculous amount--like 100,000 miles---but do you think those lines are still in use? (<snicker>maybe by bellsouth</snicker>).

    The copper networks were opened up for competition in 1996 but that was a whole different world compared to today. In 1996, for 2-way communication, the copper network was the only game in town. That's just not the case today. Cellular, Wireless and Cable both now compete with the copper networks.

    I look forward to your denouncement of your own post!

    Cheers!