Slashdot Mirror
Verizon 'Grossly Overstated' Its 4G LTE Coverage In Government Filings, Trade Group Says (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Verizon "grossly overstated" its 4G LTE coverage in government filings, potentially preventing smaller carriers from obtaining funding needed to expand coverage in underserved rural areas, a trade group says. The Federal Communications Commission last year required Verizon and other carriers to file maps and data indicating their current 4G LTE coverage. The information will help the FCC determine where to distribute up to $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over the next 10 years. The funds are set aside for "primarily rural areas that lack unsubsidized 4G," the FCC says. If Verizon provided the FCC with inaccurate data, the company's rural competitors might not be able to get that government funding. "Verizon's claimed 4G LTE coverage is grossly overstated," the Rural Wireless Association (RWA), which represents rural carriers, told the FCC in a filing yesterday. "Verizon should not be allowed to abuse the FCC challenge process by filing a sham coverage map as a means of interfering with the ability of rural carriers to continue to receive universal service support in rural areas," the RWA wrote. "RWA's members are in the middle of the Challenge Process but are expending enormous time and financial resources in their efforts due to inaccurate data submitted by Verizon," the group said. "RWA requests that the Commission investigate the 4G LTE coverage claimed by Verizon and require re-filing of Verizon's data to correct its overstated coverage."
According to the RWA, Verizon claims to cover almost all of the Oklahoma Panhandle, an area of 14,778.47 square kilometers, but estimates that the actual coverage area should be approximately 6,806.49 square kilometers. "[That's] not even half of the LTE coverage area Verizon publicly claims to serve," the RWA wrote.
According to the RWA, Verizon claims to cover almost all of the Oklahoma Panhandle, an area of 14,778.47 square kilometers, but estimates that the actual coverage area should be approximately 6,806.49 square kilometers. "[That's] not even half of the LTE coverage area Verizon publicly claims to serve," the RWA wrote.
Because communication is essential. Try applying for a job without phone/internet access. Try contacting emergency services without 911. Government rightfully so mandates the available of phone access to pretty much everyone within the United States. This, honestly, is one of the few positive aspects of government: people collecting their resources into a centralized pool (tax dollars), and directly using that resource to benefit the people as a whole (communication between each other).
This is related to the old style phone system. In exchange for a monopoly AT&T/Bell was required to provide universal service. This was because the free market refused to serve all customers, but it was in the government's interest to have universal service. Today, the internet and wireless service are being considered essential services even for people who don't live in cities.
The handouts are not to unprofitable companies, the handouts are to anyone willing to provide service where no service exists. If the big players want to step up and provide this service then they can do so.
As a liberal from a rural area (which is liberal), this is *exactly* what makes rural voters pissed off about people like you.
You don't even *question* all the subsidization of urban living (cities are not self-sufficient), or sometimes you refer to even those as paying people to live nowhere, such as when people complain about funding roads. To their cities. So that supplies can get to their cities. They don't want those, apparently.
When it comes to universal access to communication, your response is "fuck everybody for not believing what I believe, I got mine".
It benefits everybody in the end, including you, when communication is universal. Until then, for instance, everybody has to maintain separate systems, businesses have to degrade their UIs, etc. -- the "paying people" gets distributed anyway, it just means everybody has to suffer too.
Real fines. In this case, $ Billions. Only a couple would work.
You're delusional if you think that pittance would do anything.
Oh, and either ban from spectrum auctions or, even better, surcharge their winning bid by 50%.
Again, you assume they care about a paltry surcharge after winning at auction. They have hundreds of millions of customers. All they have to do is add $1 to every customer bill and call it a "spectrum protection fee" or some such bullshit. Any auction surcharge will be paid for within months, and would deliver pure profit (read: executive bonuses) after that. That ROI is easily justified to a Board you're about to make even richer.
And no, Verizon customers won't cancel their service over a $1 surcharge. When it comes down to it, they might bitch for a day or two but won't actually do jack shit. Consumers are lazy, and mega-corps know it.
Of course all this Lifeline and Universal Service stuff ought to go, but rural service is a fundamentally less lucrative market. this will lead incumbents to fight off competition with the available tools, fraudulent claims being an easy one. I'm almost surprised this was caught.
I'm holding my surprise to add to my shock when being "caught" actually results in something being done other than laughable fines. As it stands right now, mega-corps don't care about being caught. Verizon probably calculated getting caught vs. the revenue secured in falsely stated markets and the gains associated with marketing the "best" LTE coverage and figured out getting caught is worth it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if another wireless provider pulled this exact same shit after this, ]because they'll know it's worth the risk.
Here's the fucking icing on the Irony cake; Wanna know what would actually happen if the FCC actually hit Verizon with a fine large enough for them to actually feel it?
Verizon would claim they're Too Big To Fail, and ask for a government bailout, on the taxpayers dime.