Slashdot Mirror
Verizon, Copper, Fiber, and the Truth
Alexander Graham Cracker writes "Starting last spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service. We discussed the issue here a couple of times. In my experience, every time Verizon has installed FiOS at a friend's house, they have insisted they have to cut off the copper and move the POTS to the fiber. By doing so, they block anyone else such as COVAD or Cavalier from renting the copper for competitive access. Sources report that today, at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Verizon executive VP Thomas Tauke denied ever doing that. (The transcript should be up in a day or so. The AP coverage does not mention this detail.) I wonder if Rep. Markey's staff is interested in hearing from people who experienced Verizon disabling copper, and without notice?"
This is why the company that provides telephone service should be a separate company from the one that maintains the wires. Same with power. Same with cable.
Fiber be damned, bring me lower prices. Competition between competitors is guaranteed to bring down prices. The fact that I have no choice in carriers is the one reason I have to pay $30-40 for a decent connection. Leaving down a cable would definetly lead to a competitive market.
And DSL be damned. When the DSL is sluggish like in my neighborhood, it is not an option.
Copper infrastructure was mostly paid for by government granted monopolies. In return, it was a tariffed service that the telcos had to lease to anyone, in a non-discriminatory way.
Yes, they had to lease to their competitors. That was the price of the gov't granting them a monopoly.
Fiber is paid for by the telcos, not the gov't so is not a tariffed service. While Verizon MUST lease copper to competitors, it isn't compelled to lease fiber access. Verizon cutting the copper is effectively cutting off any competition that was not a Baby Bell in a past life.
No, they can't just reconnect it. The copper is cut on BOTH ends -- telco CO and house. Feel free to reconnect one end, but they aren't required to let you hook it back up in their CO.
The only reason Verizon and AT&T and the others can afford to pay to lay the fiber is the wealth that was created by their guaranteed monopoly.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property? It wasn't Verizon who made a regulation making them the sole provider -- it was your local and State government. Don't be mad at Verizon because your government is completely fraudulent and corrupt -- if you vote, kick everyone out on the next election, and keep doing it until someone removes the monopoly provisions.
Verizon's telco predecessors made that capital investment with gov't guaranteed monopolies. In short, it really ISN'T Verizon's copper, it is copper paid for by taxes and a gov't granted monopoly. It is national infrastructure.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Yeah, you ARE confused. Verizon often did not lay the coper lines, Ma Bell did. Oh yeah, and Ma Bell (or Verizon later) was granted a MONOPOLY and made a huge amount of cash on it. In exchange they were told, you have to let other people rent those lines. It was part of the Deal. Oh, and also don't forget that when they installed the copper in the first place they often charged the home owner to do it. As in, I paid to put this stuff in, I will need it later, so how dare you rip it out So yeah, they are RIPPING US OFF. They are in effect paying their employees money to prevent them from having to fulfill their legal obligations to RENT (as in they get PAID for it) the copper. Totally illegal, totally a waste of cash and totally unethical. But you go on and and complaing about how what they are doing is 'ok' cause they own the copper.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Bipartisan legislative rules, by which Congress is run, are largely deals between the two major parties at the expense of any potential third one. Even campaign finance reform's major effect is to make it harder to break out into the public consciousness, which redounds to the benefit of existing party organizations.
The two-party system is enshrined in no law, but the structure of the system makes it certain that we end up with that.