dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


2 recommendations


I don't see how they are lying about maintenance costs. Wireless or not, that doesn't make maintenance for DSL any cheaper. And as people flee DSL, that would make maintenance costs per subscriber increase drastically. That big copper network still has to be maintained.

$28.99 is pretty cheap for DSL anyway. You would be hard pressed to find DSL in this area for that price.

Mojo 77


I don't see how they are lying about maintenance costs.

Insisting that 1.5 Mbps DSL needs to be $5 more expensive because of maintenance cost is total BS.

That big copper network still has to be maintained.

They don't spend much on maintaining it (ask West Virginia) and they're in the process of gutting it.

$28.99 is pretty cheap for DSL anyway. You would be hard pressed to find DSL in this area for that price.

You're easily pleased. Many of those users are getting 768k/128k. 128 kbps upstream. That total doesn't include fees and the now-forced landline many users have to bundle in. a 768 kbps line costs Verizon hardly anything. Certainly not worth a $5 hike.


Auburn, GA

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco
Yeah, not buying this one, Karl. If anything they are raising rates in DSL users to push them to FiOS. And if not available then they are not pushing people toward cable, cable is winning them with better pricing. That's called competition.

Mojo 77


That's called competition.

Refusing to upgrade users, jacking up prices, and then ultimately cutting users so their only option is cable (which is what's slowly happening here) is your definition of "competition?" You should get a job as a lawyer or lobbyist.



1 recommendation

reply to thehondaboy
They're not pushing them to FiOS. See how small the footprint for FiOS really is.

They're pushing them to give up home broadband for fixed LTE and wireless, which is the biggest fantasy of all but what the shareholders want.


Bon Aqua, TN

1 recommendation

reply to thehondaboy
Heh, maybe pretend competition.. Once verizon gets rid of those peskey dsl customers cable will suddenly need to jack their rates up.. What then? Back to verizon? Assuming they even let you resubscribe? No, not likely..


Binghamton, NY

3 recommendations

reply to Mojo 77
said by Mojo 77 :

a 768 kbps line costs Verizon hardly anything. Certainly not worth a $5 hike.

A 768kbit/s line probably costs them more than a 10mbit/s line. The 768kbit/s line is likely rural, or at least a long loop suburban line, and longer loops are never going to be as cheap to maintain as shorter ones. Additionally, the 768kbit/s line has a lower margin even after they raise prices. My old 10-15mbit/s service was $60/mo and undoubtedly provided them with a higher margin than a $28 1.5mbit/s or less circuit.

The major expense here is the maintenance of the copper plant. Backhaul bandwidth is trivial, and for that cost there is likely very little difference between a 768kbit/s line and 10mbit/s one. Particularly when you account for the fact that the vast majority are idle at any given time, even in the IP video era.


Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

reply to thehondaboy
I don't understand this notion that they should be obligated to maintain an expensive/dying technology or compelled to spend billions of dollars to upgrade markets where they'll see less ROI than they do on wireless. Wireless is a growth market, landline is not. They could pour billions into the landline market but that will make precious little difference as far as uptake is concerned.

People around here don't seem to grasp the concept that they are not the typical broadband user. The vast majority of "normal" people I know are still using the broadband provider they first signed up for when it became available a decade ago. Many of them are on 1.5mbit/s DSL with grandfathered pricing plans that have never changed. They don't realize (or plain don't care) that faster offerings are available. Some of them even have access to faster DSL speeds for cheaper. They could activate the new plan with a two minute phone call, but they don't realize that, or are just too lazy to pick up the phone. When they do switch it's usually because the nice salesman from the cableco knocked on their door and touted the "advantages" of a triple play.

(Advantages in quote marks because it doesn't always make financial sense for someone to switch, particularly if they aren't heavy internet/phone users and/or get suckered into a big cable package they never end up watching.)


East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

reply to silbaco
They may desire to get to a critical mass so they can shed the must-carry service, but by no means does Verizon WANT to give up profitable customers. That's total bs.

The problem is that infrastructure costs while may be going down SLIGHTLY, labor is not so call it a wash. These costs need to be AMORTIZED over the customer base.

So for instance say it costs $1000 opex for 100 users ($10/user/mo), and 30 leave for cable. Now that cost is still $1000, but now only 70 people, so now it costs $14/user/mo). Guess what, profit margins need to be maintained, so prices go up. Not rocket science.

As this death spiral continues until Verizon asks for regulatory relief, and they sell off the remaining lines to some small regional player who may invest in next gen and do something with it. But make no mistake, they are riding this horse into the ground, and it is the right move. Copper is dead, so why throw good money on bad.

Verizon needs to sink their capital budgets into LTE to keep ahead, and once they complete in 2014, then they can go back and refarm and potentially add fiber to profitable areas, but they aren't going to add fiber to some farm with 2 houses per 80 acres. They are going to get LTE or whitespace, and it's going to be expensive AS IT SHOULD. If it cost verizon $1000 to wire 20 houses in my neighborhood (not true), and $2,000 to wire a farm, guess what--if you owned a business what would you do? Wire a house for $50, or $2,000?

Add to the fact that replacing copper is very expensive and moving to newer line cards/technology (VDSL2, etc) give minimal uplift especially if they are not going to do video on it.

So this is what happens when a technology is disrupted with legacy collateral damage, it dies a very expensive, ugly, and painful death.

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Tulsa, OK
reply to thehondaboy
Uh, the whole thing clearly smacks of LACK of competition.


reply to Mojo 77
The interesting thing is that as an iLEC in many areas, they still need to maintain much of the copper plant to provide residential POTS, unless of course they've got FIOS in your neighborhood.

And if they are requiring you to take POTS with your DSL, then is there really THAT much more maintenance involved?

As a side note, not sure what planet people live on, but LTE isn't replacing anyone's cable modem service in my area, even though we've had decent LTE service for a while now. There is nothing like a good, hardwired Internet connection.

Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Philly burbs

2 recommendations

reply to elefante72
IMHO, Verizon deployed Fios in all the markets they have any interest doing "land line" business in, and to hell with the rest. The people making these decisions are rather intelligent & have at least some vision for the future.

Deploy Fios in the markets where you know you can turn a profit, screw the rest. Let the copper plant decay until they can offload it, and focus on LTE & Fios.

Verizon has ZERO REASON to maintain their copper footprint. It's expensive to maintain, over regulated, and essentially obsolete.

If I were at the helm at Big Red I would be doing everything I could to get out from under that copper albatross and focus on Fios & wireless.

Less regulation & more profit. It's a no brainer.....
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


Springfield, MO
reply to Crookshanks
If people had access to higher speeds for not much more than they're paying now, they'd make the switch (especially if the advertising was done right).

You're right, they DON'T REALIZE that faster offerings are available, because the telco is purposefully trying to keep them ignorant.

Anyway, you're right. Big business shouldn't be 'obligated' to keep up with the times. But if they decide not to, they better get the hell out of the way so someone else can do it, and they can just die off. Problem is, THEY WON'T ALLOW THAT. They lobby against pretty much anyone and everyone who tries.


Binghamton, NY
I'm sorry it bothers you that people and organizations use our political system to lobby in their own interest. I dislike crony capitalism as much as the next guy, but you lost me when you started complaining about "lobbying". We all "lobby", this entire website is a lobby for our respective agendas.

Verizon isn't purposefully trying to keep people ignorant of faster offerings. Why would they do that? The plant and equipment is already paid for, but you think they are deliberately trying to keep people from using it?

Verizon doesn't heavily advertise or invest money into their wireline services, because wireless has a higher ROI, but they don't prohibit people from using it in the areas that already have it. Karl's crying wolf about Verizon and AT&T "hanging up" on DSL users is getting quite old. I'd like to hear a single case of someone who already had POTS and/or DSL getting "hung up" on.