
How Verizon lets its copper network decay to force phone customers onto fiber - smacktoward
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/why-verizon-is-trying-very-hard-to-force-fiber-on-its-customers/
======
erikig
I hate to say it but this article reeks of Neo-Luddism.

Fiber is the future and it it here to stay. In trying to hold on to the old
tech, these Verizon customers are forcing Verizon to stagger their support
between two technologies for much longer than they would otherwise - leading
to diminished customer service and perceived reliability for both.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Imagine this was an article about a web server provider... the customers want
to stay with their current server with 99% uptime, the provider wants to
switch them to a faster server with 90% uptime.

In a properly regulated market the customer gets to choose the option that
suits them best, but as everyone knows the situation with US ISPs is bananas,
far too much power in the hands of too few companies.

~~~
davmre
A better analogy would be: you shared a web server with 99 other users,
splitting the cost 100 ways. Then the provider installed a new, faster server
(with marginally smaller uptime -- easily worked around by buying a backup
battery), to which all 99 of your fellow customers migrated. You refuse to
migrate and want to stay on the old server.

In a free market, the provider would say something like "that's fine, we'll
keep maintaining the old server as long as you're willing to pay the costs",
where said costs are now 100x of what they previously were, since you're no
longer sharing the upkeep. You could then decide yourself if this were really
the best use of your resources.

In Verizon's case, though, prices on copper POTS service are regulated and
can't be raised to reflect upkeep costs. So when most customers switch to
fiber, the money coming in from the few remaining copper customers doesn't
actually cover maintenance costs. That means maintenance of the copper network
is being subsidized by FiOS customers. Whatever Verizon's other evils (and I
agree with you that there are many), a government-mandated transfer of wealth
from fiber adopters to copper-clinging Luddites is not good policy.

~~~
rayiner
> Whatever Verizon's other evils (and I agree with you that there are many), a
> government-mandated transfer of wealth from fiber adopters to copper-
> clinging Luddites is not good policy.

Most of what people perceive as Verizon's evils are the result of government-
mandated transfer of wealth.[1]

The way most markets work is that new technology is introduced in the premium
segment, and trickles down to everyone else once the fixed costs are
amortized. In almost every city, Verizon is legally prevented from doing this.
If they want to wire up a city with FiOS, they can't start with the rich
neighborhoods and expand to poorer neighborhoods as it makes sense to do so.
They have to commit to wiring up the whole city in one go. Because that's an
unattractive proposition in most places, they've halted new FiOS deployment.

The same thing is true of the existing copper network. Many of the places that
are currently wired shouldn't be wired. In a free market, they wouldn't be
wired. It makes no sense to wire them, for remoteness or density reasons. The
reason they're wired is that the government taxed certain of Verizon's
customers to subsidize the customers that it doesn't make sense to build out
to.

[1] I'm not against such programs as a principle, but when you try to
implement it "by the back door" instead of through direct subsidy, as the
government has done in the telecom sector, you get exactly the sort of
dysfunction that we see now.

~~~
mbreese
You're absolutely right. Rural America and poor people shouldn't have access
to the internet or phone service. It is a horrible tragedy that we have a
universal service fund that helped to give everyone in the country a basic
level of service.

~~~
gizmo686
If we want to give these people/regions services then we should be clear about
what we are doing and explicitly subsidize them, and fund it by explicitly
taxing others. Instead, these policies implicitly subsidize them by implicitly
taxing others.

------
dsr_
Near the bottom of page 1:

> A fiber line that carries POTS traffic is still subject to utility
> regulations.

A person at Public Knowledge told me that VZ is supposed to offer a POTS
(well, TDMA) fully-tariffed-and-regulated voice service over FIOS.

That doesn't appear on their web pages, so I called to see if I could order
it. Nobody in their call centers knows of such a product. Then I used a web-
chat, and, surprise, the existence of such a thing was flatly denied.

I'm in VZ FIOS territory, but I'm not interested in being their customer.

~~~
rhino369
[http://www.verizon.com/home/phone/#callingplans](http://www.verizon.com/home/phone/#callingplans)

They don't call it Fios, but it'll work over their fiber if you don't have
copper connection.

~~~
dsr_
No. If you live in a FIOS-served neighborhood and do not have existing copper,
this product is unavailable. Instead you'll be offered an unregulated FIOS
voice product.

------
nostromo
This is a problem I'd love to have.

It makes me sad that the FCC may put the brakes on fiber rollout because a few
people are upset that their phones won't work during long blackouts. It must
be a small population; I can't even name a single person under 50 that has a
landline.

At some point telcos stopped supporting the telegraph too.

~~~
ams6110
I'm closing in on 50 and I dropped my landline years ago. I had a VOIP service
at home for a while because cellular signals is very poor at my house, but
dropped that when I switched to Republic Wireless. Now my phone uses WiFi at
home and Sprint's network when I'm mobile.

Yes, I'm now subject to failures of my home internet service (Comcast), my
cable modem, and my wireless router, and if I lose power it all goes offline.
But so far it hasn't been enough of a problem that I want to go back to the
expense of a separate POTS service.

~~~
chimeracoder
Note that what you think of as a landline and what is counted (for regulation
purposes) as a landline are two entirely different things. It's entire
possible that you didnt have a regulated landline service, even though it
appeared to be one.

Verizon cares only about ensuring that their phone service doesn't fall under
the regulations of phone service

------
crazy1van
Perhaps I'm too sensitive but I feel the current Ars runs a lot of techno-
sensationalist stories that often are inconsistent from one week to the next.
Next week I expect to see Ars run a story chastising the US for its remaining
high percentage of users still on slow copper internet whereas Europe and
Korea have much faster internet speeds.

~~~
sheetjs
techno-sensationalism = page views = ad impressions = $$

------
chimeracoder
It's not just Verizon - Comcast and AT&T are also trying to kill copper,
because that would allow them the same unregulated control over phone service
that they already enjoy over the Internet.

[http://www.timmins.net/2013/12/11/how-att-verizon-and-
comcas...](http://www.timmins.net/2013/12/11/how-att-verizon-and-comcast-are-
working-together-to-screw-you-by-discontinuing-landline-service/)

~~~
ams6110
Of course, the natural response to regulation is to find a way around it.
That's why so many of our regulations simply result in non-value-added
overhead and higher costs for everyone.

------
ZenoArrow
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like LLU (Local Loop Unbundling) is
legally possible in the US: [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-
loop_unbundling](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling)

Every article I've read about Verizon suggests they're run by dickheads, I'm
sure there would be plenty of people willing to switch to an alternative
provider, why is LLU not popular in the US? To make it clear, LLU means you
can lease the same copper or fibre lines to run your own ISP as long as you
install your own routing gear in the exchange. I know it's very popular in the
UK.

~~~
toast0
Under the current regulatory guidance from the FCC, LLU is only viable in the
US for customers connected directly to a Central Office. For customers
connected to a remote terminal, there is insufficient space to install 3rd
party gear, and the incumbent carrier gets to be a monopoly on data services.

------
doctorshady
Not only is this incredibly sleazy, it's a sign of things to come; it's
incredibly clear that Verizon has ceased to give anything reminiscent of a
fuck about their networks. How do you think that bodes for the longevity of
LTE? Or FiOS for that matter?

Regardless of either, the PSTN is a great tool, and an incredible, self
sustaining network. The fact that Verizon would shrug it off in favor of
running off with the money Netflix gave them to resolve their peering dispute
or what have you instead of trying to innovate illustrates their future in
telecommunications.

Though I think by now, it's incredibly obvious it isn't a bright one for
consumers. With any luck, a company like Frontier who gives something beyond a
negative fuck in regards to the wireline network will end up buying it up and
smashing Verizon with it.

~~~
rhino369
Why should Verizon be forced to support an incredibly aging network that
people are abandoning left and right?

50% of Americans don't use a landline.

Verizon offers phone service on fiber.

~~~
doctorshady
Source? As far as I was aware, it was around 40% that didn't, and the decline
has slowed pretty drastically in recent years. Not to mention it's hardly a
rarity in businesses.

In any event though, you're really missing the point here; the problem isn't
abandoning copper. It's not providing an equivalent grade of service to one
we've had for decades now.

Verizon has long supported regulated POTS service over FiOS. They're now
trying to push people towards a form of phone service that's no longer
regulated for quality or price, among other things such as the requirement to
share the outside plant with competitive carriers. You know how the push for
net neutrality is gearing towards Title II classification for internet? That's
precisely what they're trying to steer clear of; they still want to offer
phone service, but offer it as an unregulated Title I service - much like the
internet is classified right now.

As for the issue of local instead of common battery, the POTS standard
requires 50 milliamps of power. I'd be absolutely shocked if there was no way
to reliably deliver that over fiber.

tl;dr, this is really more a regulatory issue then a technology one. It's
actually very similar to the debate going on about the internet right now.
Technology is just the excuse being given to getting around Verizon's
obligations as a common carrier.

~~~
rhino369
>[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless20140...](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201407.pdf)

40% don't have access and a bunch more never use it. And that is including
people who use VOIP and services like cable company voice services.

>In any event though, you're really missing the point here; the problem isn't
abandoning copper. It's not providing an equivalent grade of service to one
we've had for decades now.

We aren't owed a super reliable voice backup service. Especially if its not
economical.

>You know how the push for net neutrality is gearing towards Title II
classification for internet? That's precisely what they're trying to steer
clear of; they still want to offer phone service, but offer it as an
unregulated Title I service - much like the internet is classified right now.

Verizon is abandoning it and nobody is rushing in to take over. I wonder why?
It's an unprofitable business. Are you going to invest your lifesaving's in a
POTS service? Of course not.

>Technology is just the excuse being given to getting around Verizon's
obligations as a common carrier.

Not get around it, Verizon is seeking to avoid being one. Unless you are
willing to regulate the shit out of Apple's facetime, skype, google video,
etc. etc, it should be no shock that Verizon wants out.

Buy an old flip phone if you want a back up for a major outage.

~~~
doctorshady
> 40% don't have access and a bunch more never use it. And that is including
> people who use VOIP and services like cable company voice services.

Cable and voip likely have more to do with bundling, and Verizon actively
trying to force people to FiOS/off their network then anything else. They
clearly aren't competing to modernize their DSL services to compete against
cable, and as such, people have switched over to their internet service. Take
a look at any thread with 'Comcast' in the subject line. I don't think I have
to tell you people feel stuck with their services. Anyway, since bundling has
become such a common practice, it's likely much more economical to buy phone
service from them instead.

> We aren't owed a super reliable voice backup service. Especially if its not
> economical.

So let me get this straight - a service that the majority of the country has,
and can be found in nearly every business across the country isn't economical?
A grade of reliability we've had for decades isn't economical anymore? I
suppose unlimited internet plans aren't either.

> Verizon is abandoning it and nobody is rushing in to take over. I wonder
> why? It's an unprofitable business. Are you going to invest your
> lifesaving's in a POTS service? Of course not.

Actually, Frontier, Fairpoint, Windstream and Hawaiian Telecom have bought out
a ton of states Verizon used to provide service in, but okay. Verizon isn't
selling the other states they still service; that's why we're hearing about
them refusing to maintain their infrastructure. Not these other companies.
Hell, from what I've been hearing, things have gotten better under their
ownership.

> Not get around it, Verizon is seeking to avoid being one. Unless you are
> willing to regulate the shit out of Apple's facetime, skype, google video,
> etc. etc, it should be no shock that Verizon wants out.

Those are commodity services that operate over other peoples' infrastructure.
Let me know the day when any of these services operate dedicated links between
peoples' homes, and starts offering 911 services, faxing, circuit switched
data transport, interactive voice response services, and the myriad of other
things people use the phone network for.

------
morganw
In Los Gatos
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_codes_408_and_669#Los_Gato...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_codes_408_and_669#Los_Gatos),
the copper network is all there is. I can get DSL with up to 3Mbps. I have a
cell phone and cable modem.

------
jwatte
If VoIP actually used the capability to deliver higher call quality, that
would be one thing. But these services almost universally sound like vocoder
compressed noise in an echo tunnel. They're as bad as cell phones, and have as
much latency, which makes conversations very hard. "Could you repeat that" and
people talking over each other is much more common now than 20 years ago.

~~~
voltagex_
I'm struggling with a couple of VoIP services vs the occasional Skype call. As
much as I dislike Skype, the call quality is _much_ higher, especially when
I'm using HSPA or similar.

------
cbhl
I'm under the impression that the extra redundancy that Bell and co have to
maintain power on phone lines during an outage is precisely what makes it so
expensive relative to VoIP products.

Would it not make more sense to demand the utilities provide more reliable
power in the face of an emergency (even at increased cost)?

~~~
ams6110
I think that depends on the increased cost. Do I want to pay more to avoid a
couple of hours without power during a storm? proably not, it's not really a
big deal. Do I want to avoid multi-day power outages? Sure, but those are rare
and a system that is fully resistant to e.g. major hurricane damage might cost
be more than people want to or can afford to pay for.

------
shmerl
Fiber? More like to their capped and useless mobile networks. Verizon stopped
expanding their fiber optic network long ago except in a few areas where they
are bound by contracts, and even there they cheat and don't finish the work. I
wish Verizon would offer fiber instead of copper lines. No dice.

------
eglover
So they don't want to deal with the hassle of supporting two kinds of networks
at once. Big deal. Either find an alternative, deal with their decision which
is driven by other customers (not some sort of imaginary corporate
sociopathy), or start your own. Whining helps no one.

