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?"
So they're blocking off potential competitors? At least it's spurring the move to Fiber Optic...
When I switched from cable internet to FiOS earlier this year I was told that had to permanently cut the copper wire to my house. So I now have fiber phone service. Works fine, except for the short delay that always occurs between picking up the phone and using it. They also put a battery in my basement to give me eight hours of phone service during a power outage.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
All someone would need to do to validate these claims would be to bring in a competitor and have them try to offer services through said copper. It would be hearsay to make a statement without something other than a "word of mouth" to back up a claim. Doing so - bringing in an alternative provider - provides irrefutable proof. However being crafty I can think of an instance where someone @ Verizon can make an argument charging that the copper coming into the home was causing some form of crosstalk which caused attenuation issues and required the copper being "disabled". Note the intentional use of "disabled" as opposed to "cut". I personally could see some twobit Verizon shlum doing something stupid on their own accord. "If we cut the copper John we never have to worry about losing our job!"
Infiltrated dot Net
Nope, my pennies still seem to work..
"A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
Ummm, maybe it would have made sense to hold off on this story until it's found to be true, instead of telling us that "sources report" something that's not in the linked article? Far be it from me to doubt Alexander Graham Cracker's "sources", but just on principle...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
They left my copper in, because it was too difficult to remove. However, even when he was trying to do so , I was well aware he was going to remove the copper.
I generally stick around when contractors are rewiring my house, but I suppose if you're not one of those people, it may come as a surprise. It's probably one of those things on the checklist of stuff to mention, and it doesn't happen sometimes. I've had friends get fiber, be told they're removing the copper, asked them to not remove it, and there were no problems.
Also, I had a bird's nest of copper in my house. I got FiOS so my phone and internet would be over a clear digital connection, and it hasn't gone down since the day it went in (early this summer). I could care less about the speed.
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.
Or further up the line? Because the Telco is responsible up to the demarcation point, after which, it is the customer's wiring. Which side are they cutting? How significant is this cutting? Whole sections, or just a snip here to isolate the premise wiring in preparation of new equipment installation?
The sad part is that they are only doing this for one reason:
Scrap copper money.
In a world where a company will do anything to keep wall street and its investors happy, they have decided to make money off the scrap copper now that they are going fiber optic.
Actually, they are now looking into scrap fiber optic for the next generation.
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.
As someone who has FIOS, the difference in service is clear. With copper I was free to choose my ISP. I chose a very, very good local mom and pop ISP. With Fiber I'm stuck with Verizon.
The technology may be more modern, but the terms of service are in the stoneage. It would be better in the long run if the terms of service were forcibly opened, as with copper, since they don't appear willing to open them voluntarily.
This is something of a reversal of history though. Verizon didn't deploy the stuff until they got a waiver of the copper rules requiring they open them to other ISPs. They were active in closing the terms of service and the government went right along with them.
Bastards.
Evil people are out to get you.
We had FIOSS put in because the 7 MB/sec line was faster and cheaper than the T-1. They not only cut our copper, but they dug up and removed most of the copper cabling from the neighborhood. They said that with the price of copper, it would be recycled and it would keep it from being stolen since it wasn't being used anymore. It sounded suspicious to me, but I stood in what was then my front yard and watched them do it.
2 cents,
Queen B.
HDGary secures my bank
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
spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service
Last spring? I had FiOS installed in early to mid 2005 and the installer asked to remove my copper. At the time I hadn't yet cancelled my T1. But for that I've no doubt he'd have removed it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
You would think that wires run to the closest exchange, but that is not always the case. I saw a case at USWest (LONG ago), where the closest exchange was across the street, but because it was added later, our wires ran several miles up the road.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Fiber == Future. Copper == Past. This is the idea of capitalism, we want an even playing field for companies so that they can edge out the competition with better prices/ideas. Verizon is doing that, and quiet well.
If things really were free, you would be right. They are not and you are selling yourself out. It was a sin for government to grant Ma Bell a monopoly. To undo that sin, the public servitude must be liberated and the Bell holdings must be dissolved. The other answer is to have a completely public network that everyone can use. Any combination of the two will favor one company over the others and this is why US networks have gone from world supremacy to third rate status. Verizon is doing what they are doing so that others won't be able to serve you. When they are finished robbing you of choice they will take your freedom.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I know this because I was trying to get fiber, then found a huge long thread on Usenet as to why there's no fiber in Sunnyvale, where I live and work: basically the telcos are trying to squeeze all the money they can out of old infrastructure, without investing in new.
This left me with cable and DSL. I don't want Comcast cable internet because they filter BitTorrent. I operate a torrent tracker for legal music downloads, so I need to use BitTorrent just to check that my tracker and seed are up.
DSL seemed to out as well because I'm over three miles from the phone office. I was very surprised that something hadn't already been done to make DSL available to silicon valley residents. I'm sure there are ways they could extend the range of DSL in an affordable way.
Finally I found Stephouse which, through COVAD, offers IDSL. That's DSL over ISDN, and I'm just within range. It's what I have now.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Anyone who doesn't think this is a crime is a moron. *We* paid for this indirectly by subsidizing telco monopolies with our tax dollars. Also, isn't Verizon the company that has tried to stop the 700MHZ auction through legal auction? They are bending over backwards to try and eliminate competition. It's painfully obvious and it really pisses me off. As for that right-wing troll who complains about Markey being a socialist, I wish I could put him in a factory before the Sherman Act of 1890. I bet we wouldn't hear him complaining about socialist tendencies then. Furthermore, is it really 'anti-business' if the government is trying to encourage *competition* ? Think about it moron. What you really should be complaining about is Verizon and their ilk taking money from the cookie jar that is the Universal Service Fund which is *supposed* to guarantee service to rural areas - $4B out of our pockets *every year*. Have you ever tried using your cell phone in a remote area? Do you think you can get high-speed internet in Bald Knob, Arkansas? I seriously doubt it. Futhermore, Verizon won the $10B Federal IWN contract *and* wants to get more government money from the USF for the 700MHZ spectrum. Their gall knows no bounds. If you are a true republican you should be complaining about all this pork and the pig that is Verizon. Quadraginta, *please* STFU!
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.
Actually the best way to deal with a Natural Monopoly like landlines is to separate the infrastructure from services. Maybe instead of a business owning the infrastructure local governments, nonprofits, or business can own it but then they are required to allow open access. This is what's being done in northeastern Utah with a Broadband Utopia. A group of communities in the area built the infrastructure and allows anyone to offer any services it is capable of. It could be internet access, phone service, "cable" tv, or any combination (Triple Play". How would you like a 30 megabit per second, mps, connection? That's what's available now however speeds could get to 100mps.
Should there be a Law?
It took me 3 weeks of fighting with Verizon (who insisted on taking 2 days to make a service appointment window, and insisted that they be 8a-7p) and my DSL provider (who was horribly frustrated by their inability to get Verizon to simply run a clean *bleeping* loop) to get things back up and running.
-Cheetah
I'd be the first to recognize that the history of the telco industry is insanely complicated, but the solution is to find a way to divide things up that takes both the private and public investments in the infrastructure
Oh, I agree. As I said many tymes I think ownership of some infrastructure should be separate from the services that it provides. For instance I think it might be better for a community to build and own the infrastructure but allow open access for any services the infrastructure can provide. Take cable, a nonprofit, for profit, or the city owns the cable but then it allows different companies to offer cable tv, internet access, phone service, or a Triple Play with all three. I would be able to go to one company for tv, another for phone service, and a third for net access.
Should there be a Law?
I had fios installed 2 months ago in Richmond, VA. I read the original article on slashdot, and asked the fios tech about cutting the copper. He said they didn't do that because there was a 30 day cancel policy and it would be to expensive to come back out. I still have a copper phone line, and fios at the same time. It causes issues for my billing though because they are "mixed media" and I don't get a bundle package.