 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
2 edits | fu to Verizon Honestly..this huge of a sale makes me sick, its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off.
Yet Comcast hasn't sold its subscribers off like Verizon just did, Verizon just unloaded HALF OF THEIR USERBASE.
Verizon= Cherrypicker, and I dare you to say they don't, when faced with this evidence.
O and if these areas were not profitable, then why the HELL did you install FiOS at some of the locations?   |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. Why should Verizon be lambasted for not wanting to lose money? If anyone should be investigated and attacked it should be the buyer, of which few of us think will actually be able to pull this off. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to jmn1207
Re: fu to Verizon said by jmn1207:Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. Why should Verizon be lambasted for not wanting to lose money? If anyone should be investigated and attacked it should be the buyer, of which few of us think will actually be able to pull this off. There is a difference between McDonalds and Walmart Cherrypicking (ie: Deciding where to build stores) and what Verizon does (deciding what class of service to provide in their exclusive/monopoly areas). Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area) while McDonalds and Walmart do not have the right to prevent Burger King or K-Mart from building stores. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to ztmike
said by ztmike:Honestly..this huge of a sale makes me sick, its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off. Yeah, and? How is this differently then most other companies that want to maximize profit? Frontier approached Verizon, nto the other way around. If you owned a dilapidated old home that you weren't real keen on maintaining forever, and someone came and offered you a premium for it, are you telling me that you wouldn't take it?
Yet Comcast hasn't sold its subscribers off like Verizon just did, Verizon just unloaded HALF OF THEIR USERBASE. They didn't sell half their userbase. They sold about 15% of their user base that covers 47% of their territory. In other words, the least dense part of their territory.
Verizon= Cherrypicker, and I dare you to say they don't, when faced with this evidence. Would you rather Verizon just keep a hold of those customers and never do anythign with them?
O and if these areas were not profitable, then why the HELL did you install FiOS at some of the locations?
They offloaded 1/2 their territory and it just happened to have those 3 FiOS markets where, relatively speaking, wasn't too many customers. They couldn't sell off all 14 states except those 3 markets. So those 3 markets in some regards were just "causalities" of the divestiture. If they had a reasonable choice, they might have wanted to keep them, but the 3 markets were also pretty remote to most other currently planned FiOS installs so getting rid of them was still advantageous. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to RARPSL
Why does Verizon have an exclusive right to sell service in a particular area? How was Verizon able to make this happen all by themselves? Why do they deserve all the criticism? |
|
|
|
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area) That's a pretty inaccurate statement, but I'd be more than willing to be proven wrong. Can you provide any evidence that Verizon has exclusive access to voice or data service in their operating areas?
A competitive company may decide they can't make money competing with Verizon, but there's nothing that prevents them from trying. |
|
 MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| Verizon is an offshoot of the AT&T breakup back in the day..obviously before each of your time cause of these weird questions.
Can you even fathom how much it would cost to run copper to an entire city, even if it is as small as 10,000 people? This is to every house and every community.
Verizon didn't have to pay for it. It was given to them by the US taxpayer years and years ago.
Verizon is cherry picking because of their monopoly and utility status. It is different than a Walmart.
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:There is a difference between McDonalds and Walmart Cherrypicking (ie: Deciding where to build stores) and what Verizon does (deciding what class of service to provide in their exclusive/monopoly areas). Yes there is a difference in the types of businesses. However when Verizon entered or acquired many of the divested markets, they were only offering telephone service. The internet hadn't been invented let alone FiOS TV. Overall, they’ve maintained those networks as they are suppose to, to provide telephone service.
New types of services came about and Verizon had to make the choice whether or not to expand. Just as McDs and Walmart had the choice to build where they wanted to, they also have the ability to decide to sell their location/property and let someone else take over. Similarly, Verizon has done the same. Verizon has determined that a location is no longer profitable investment for what they want. That doesn’t necessarily mean those areas were unprofitable, but rather they felt that their money could be better invested elsewhere. They aren’t closing up shop and leaving everyone hanging. They realized that they have assets that someone else wanted and decided to sell them…the same way that Walmart and McDonalds buy and sell their locations.
Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area) while McDonalds and Walmart do not have the right to prevent Burger King or K-Mart from building stores. Verizon didn’t unilaterally declare that they had an exclusive monopoly on an area. It was granted to them by the local franchise authority or utility commission. If those franchise agreements included some type of requirements that Verizon must build out the networks in a particular way, I would expect that you’ll hear some legal wrangling in the coming months. But if there wasn’t, or Frontier just continues under the same or similar franchise agreements, I don’t you’ll see authorities object to the sale on the grounds that a monopoly was once granted. |
|
wev567
join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to ztmike
said by ztmike:...its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off. And they are letting someone else serve you. Would you rather suffer with someone who doesn't want to serve you, or let another company have a chance to provide the upgrades you want? |
|
| reply to MrMaster
said by MrMaster:Verizon is an offshoot of the AT&T breakup back in the day..obviously before each of your time cause of these weird questions. Sorry - I was touring Bell System Central Offices when Charley Brown was running Illinois Bell, and that's no joke. A particularly popular bumper sticker on craft vehicles was "Charley Brown is my boss - I work for peanuts."
said by MrMaster:Can you even fathom how much it would cost to run copper to an entire city, even if it is as small as 10,000 people? This is to every house and every community. Yes, I can. It varies from $1500 to $3000 per home, depending on the type of connection (fiber or coax).
said by MrMaster:Verizon didn't have to pay for it. It was given to them by the US taxpayer years and years ago.
No, it wasn't. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Just because a company installed wire in the ground under regulatory supervision does not mean the taxpayers paid for it.
What happened was that the phone company used it's own money to install the infrastructure. The regulators limited the profit that the company could make on that investment and controlled how much the subscribers could be charged each month to pay the company back.
said by MrMaster:Verizon is cherry picking because of their monopoly and utility status. It is different than a Walmart. Verizon is choosing where it wishes to do business and that is no different than any other company.
And no one has provided any proof to the assertion that Verizon was granted an exclusive franchise in any service area. |
|
 ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | reply to jmn1207
You do realize that they buy exclusive contracts with stae and city govenments and that the FCC has granted them the ability to not share any of the fiber they lay with any other company, which is why they rip out the normal phone line when you get fios, because they have to share the copper twisted pair with other companies.
By doing all of this they are setting themselves up as an only option, once you have them, it becomes an expensive pain in the ass to get rid of them.
It's allot like GM did to the rail systems in the US
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo···tructure
As they paid to get roads built they also bought out the light rail companies and dug up their tracks, essentially forcing the people that lived in the area to buy a car as there was no alternative anymore. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by Parogadi:You do realize that they buy exclusive contracts with stae and city govenments and that the FCC has granted them the ability to not share any of the fiber they lay with any other company, which is why they rip out the normal phone line when you get fios, because they have to share the copper twisted pair with other companies. By doing all of this they are setting themselves up as an only option, once you have them, it becomes an expensive pain in the ass to get rid of them. It's allot like GM did to the rail systems in the US » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo···tructureAs they paid to get roads built they also bought out the light rail companies and dug up their tracks, essentially forcing the people that lived in the area to buy a car as there was no alternative anymore. I clearly remember when AT&T was forced to split. The point is that any exclusivity that Verizon "bought" had to have a seller. Blame your politicians looking for quick cash to make voters happy. Blame the president of your home owner's association. Blame Frontier for spending so much money on Verizon's wasteland. This was not a one-sided affair, and nobody should blame Verizon for "cherrypicking", as if they are doing something unscrupulous.
The GM analogy is a bit off the mark. If Verizon were allowed to buy their competition and force everyone to use DSL, then it would make more sense. But your idea is not lost to me, and I see the angle you are driving at (like the pun?), but Verizon should not feel compelled to do something financially silly just to make a few customers happy at the sake of potentially making many angry.
I don't think we should be bailing out banks or any other failing industry, and I don't want to have to save Verizon or AT&T in the future because they tanked trying to keep their heads above water. Let them run their business. They SOLD part of what they owned, it's not like they just abandoned ship. Somebody, obviously, thought this was a good deal, or no one would have bought this at the asking price. |
|
ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | they got their exclusivity on fios that they lay from the FCC, we don't get to vote on the FCC.
Many parts of the country are paying the price for the lack of public transport in the same way that the people that have fios will have to find a way to have their phone lines reinstalled, these days the phone companies only cover the cost up to the little gray box on the side of the house that connects to the pole, anything from the box inward is on your dime. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. The local phone companies such as Verizon are still very dominant in their service territories. They were legal government-sanctioned monopolies for 100 years and in many cases still are functional monopolies. That's the difference compared to McDonalds or Walmart. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to Parogadi
said by Parogadi:they got their exclusivity on fios that they lay from the FCC, we don't get to vote on the FCC. Many parts of the country are paying the price for the lack of public transport in the same way that the people that have fios will have to find a way to have their phone lines reinstalled, these days the phone companies only cover the cost up to the little gray box on the side of the house that connects to the pole, anything from the box inward is on your dime. The reason Verizon doesn't have to share their fiber is because THEY'RE paying for it... all of it. That wasn't the case with copper - the fact that the government paid for a good chunk of the layout of copper became one of the justifications for the provision in the 1996 Telecom Act forcing phone companies to share their networks.
As for Verizon having monopoly control in areas - what are you talking about? They're the company rolling into areas offering alternatives for TV service that didn't exist in those areas before.
I don't get it - if they try to be all things to all people, they get accused of snubbing out competition, and there's gnashing of teeth of Ma Bell coming back together. If they sell off parts of their system, divesting part of their service, then that's proof of them acting like a monopoly too? Someone please explain that to me.
While what they're doing sucks to people in those FiOS markets affected, it's business. If it happened to me, I'd be disappointed, sure, but to make the claim that this is an example of Verizon acting like a corporate bully just doesn't make any sense. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:said by jmn1207:Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. The local phone companies such as Verizon are still very dominant in their service territories. They were legal government-sanctioned monopolies for 100 years and in many cases still are functional monopolies. That's the difference compared to McDonalds or Walmart. So are you telling me that there are NO alternatives to the phone company these days? Really? Why is Verizon (and AT&T) getting into the video business? Could it be that they're having their clocks cleaned on the voice front by companies like Comcast? Why yes, that's exactly one of the reasons. Even though Verizon is the phone company in my market, to believe I don't have alternatives is just silly. I have more today than ever before. I can opt to go with a different phone carrier, or I could go VoIP (Comcast, Vonage), or I could go all cellular, or hell, I could go with Magic Jack (not that I would). The notion that my choices are MORE limited than before is just wrong. Does everyone have those same choices? Nope - but just because additional choices aren't expanding at an equal rate across the country doesn't mean that competition hasn't increased over the last several years. It most definitely has. |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to MrMaster
POTS is no longer the "monopoly" it used to be. There is plenty of competition out there now.
Wireless, Cable providers, VoIP. All offer alternatives to "the phone company". DSLR runs regular stories about how the land line customer base is shrinking.
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Verizon being a monopoly, or phone service, or anything other than a temper tantrum.
"Oh, I enjoy all the good things that come from living in a rural part of the country, but I expect the big bad phone company to run that big fat fiber optic pipe out to my house in the middle of east jibip and lose money in the process".
Folks can't have it both ways. I would LOVE to live in a rural part of the country. I despise that the Toll Brothers decided to surround my wonderful middle of nowhere home with McMansions. McMansions filled with rich elitist assholes who look down on me because I'm a humble civil servant living off 44K a year driving a 7 year old car.
But, I do have multiple choices in broadband providers. It's a trade off, like everything else in life.
Not you personally, of course. I'm sure in Houston you have choices yourself. But it is a trade off.
Assholes or Bandwidth. Whatcha want? With one, comes the other....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. 85% of US McDonalds area franchised, or 15% of US McDonalds are owned by corporate. Thats why railroad stop towns in the middle of nowhere midwest/west USA have them. Think of McDonalds like Sprint PCS used to do with their "affiliates" and "partners", Sprint PCS was franchise brand except for truly urban areas which were owned by corporate. If you were in an Affiliate or Partner, the franchisee got to set the prices and the packages you got. Great free market stuff (or not, Sprint franchises always charged more than Sprint corporate). Ever since the Nextel Merger, Sprint has been forced to buy the Affiliates and Partners that use the Sprint name because Nextel, which is run by Sprint Corporate would be competing against the Sprint franchises violating the franchise agreement Sprint corporate signed.
Walmart is a better analogy to an Verizon and ATT. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | I just named a familiar business off the top of my head, it didn't matter for my purposes. Demographics are used to decide where to place a business, whether it's a burger joint or a retail store. If a business has several locations that are not profitable, and likely will not be in the foreseeable future, they often close them down.
Verizon should be able to do the same thing, in my opinion. I guess we will find out, soon, if they are going to be allowed to sell to Frontier. |
|
