Slashdot Mirror
How Verizon Is Hindering NYC's Internet Service
Cuillere writes: Verizon promised to make FiOS available to all New York City residents. The deadline passed a year ago, and many residents still don't have FiOS as an option, but Verizon claims to have done its part. "The agreement required Verizon to 'pass' homes with fiber (not actually connect them), but no one wrote down in the agreement what they thought 'pass' meant. (Verizon’s interpretation, predictably, is that it doesn’t have to get very close.)" The situation is a mess, and the city isn't having much luck fighting it in the courts. Susan Crawford offers a solution: set up wholesale fiber access for third party ISPs and absolve Verizon of customer service responsibility.
It's almost like treating the lines in the ground as a public resource that ISPs can compete to offer service on...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
For this model to work you need a benevolent entity running the fiber network. Verizon runs a highly profitable wireless internet network which in many cases competes against high speed fixed internet. It is in their interest to kill fiber to the curb not keep it going. This might work if you spun off the fiber business or handed it over to a traditional utility like ConEd or National Grid. But then those electric utilities would probably end up using internet service to subsidize keeping the old electric grid going as that business enters its death spiral.
Absolve Verizon of customer service responsibility? How about just telling them that they failed and allow other ISPs compete -- perhaps with subsidies? Why absolve Verizon of anything at all? I don't understand that in the slightest. It's like rewarding them for failure.
Looks like it boils down to Non-technical people making technical decisions.
This is more directed to managers, VP's, and C-Levels. Before you agree to a contract for technical services, you really should have a skilled technical person read it and tell you where you are about to get screwed.
I have seen contracts to outsource L1 and L2 where it stated "Any ticket that can not be handled by L1 or L2 support personal will be forwarded L3 personal provided by XXXXXXXXX." Where XXXXX was the name of the company that was outsourcing the jobs to India. Sounds good tell you find out that the Indian company hired 1 guy to do both L1 and L2. He had no computer knowledge and simple passed all tickets to L3 with the comment "Do the needful" The Indian company always met their SLA's because it was a ticket that could not be handled by the guy they hired. (Note: That one was for 1500 servers)
Another contract I was shown listed a guaranteed uptime of 96%. When I questioned it, my VP replied "There management did not understand anything technical. 4% down time was sold to them as reasonable. So don't worry about it, we will always make our SLA's" (Note to managers: 99.99% uptime is reasonable, 99.999% uptime is what you want!)
My favorite was one that stated that the customer was responsible for all documentation and procedures on servers, access, and support. That one was a huge pile of steaming fecal mater which suddenly leapt into the air oscillating device when they were SOX audited. The company they were outsourced to met the SLA's and could not be held liable because it was in the contract that the customer was responsible for the documentation.
So, take it from someone with over 20 years in IT. When you outsource technical functions you need to have your technical people vet the contract and you need to keep them to monitor and make sure that the company, you are outsourcing to, does their job.
This is the wide open United States, not some densely packed EU country. How can you expect a provider to provide fiber to all those people over all that distance and still have enough money for bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying? Wait, this was for New York City? Well then, uh, hmmm, what, nevermind....
No, don't have a monopoly run it. But also don't require every ISP to lay their own fiber. Do what they do in Sweden. And no, it is not some communist/socialist monopoly. They have a single entity lay the fiber, but then let many, commercial, ISPs compete to provide the service over the fibers. It works great and is less expensive than what we have here. And Sweden is not that densely populated.
Yes, I am worried about the entity (whether it is gov't or a regulated commercial entity) that lays the fibers getting out of hand with their tariffs, but overall, it would seem to provide the best opportunity to get the US out of third world status when it comes to internet access.
Verizon is in the business to make money - Providing access to Internet is just one of the by-products of Verizon's quest in making money
When Verizon promised to provide FIOS to NYC it hinged on one thing - profits
Verizon will do whatever it can to provide the best kind of net access to places where it knows it can get plenty of ROI - such as Wall Street
On the other hand, places such as the Bronx, where the only real way to make money is to sell drugs, where is the impetus for Verizon to provide FIOS there?
You don't know anything about the Bronx outside of the movies. There are tons of middle-class & working-class neighborhoods where there are absolutely no crack or drug problems. Verizon could make a ton of money in the Bronx as well as plenty of neighborhoods outside of FiDi (Wall Street).
This is an infrastructure issue with tons of politics, corrupt city officials, fucked up Verizon execs, greedy landlords, and tenants stuck in the middle of a giant clusterfuck. For instance I know for a fact that Verizon FIOS is available to my building but my landlord is not required by the city to provide us with ISP options. So we just get fucking one and, surprise, surprise, it costs out the ass. There is nothing free market about it, we are held hostage to our landlord's ISP choices (and god knows if he gets kick backs from the ISP). My landlord is content to suck on the cities tit for all of the infrastructure it provides him (mostly at our cost as tax payers) and charge seriously fucking high rent. But when it comes to moving a hand to provide us with a choice of ISP, he won't move an inch.
Why don't you stick (and whoever the fuck up-voted your post) to not commenting about cities you don't know anything about outside of blatant stereotypes.