dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed

juicem2

join:2006-03-05
Mastic Beach, NY
reply to FFH

Re: Fine is not just $100,000/day

Good make them liable. Verizon thinks they can do whatever they want. A lot of people still rely on these services. They should be upgrading instead of abandoning. I think the penetration rate for fios is about 25% for tv and 27% for fios internet and climbing every quarter.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

If people would switch to FiOS, they would get their upgrade. But as you said the penetration rate of FiOS is low. That is why Verizon doesn't want to invest. Why spend money on an upgrade people are not willing to use?



scaredpoet

join:2001-03-26
Monmouth Junction, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast

The penetration rate is low because Verizon won't expand. I'd LOVE to get FiOS, but it's not available to me, and never will be. My only choices now are cable, or 3Mbps DSL... at least as long as the copper is good in my area. If... no, WHEN, it degrades, I highly doubt Verizon will lift a finger to repair it.

And guess what? If the folks in Fire Island, Mantoloking and other places where Verizon is foisting VoiceLink were upgraded to FiOS, they'd probably prefer it too. But Verizon isn't building out FiOS there, or anywhere else anymore. They'd just rather the copper rot, and have those customers either go away or switch to wireless, with its higher fees and capped data.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Some people on Fire Island had FiOS it seems, but relatively few. Like everywhere, FiOS penetration is lackluster. It's low even where FiOS is available. Many people do not want to switch over for whatever reason. And it's not just Verizon, but many other providers are in the same boat. I know of several that have had to simply tell people they are terminating DSL, switch to Fiber or have nothing.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to scaredpoet

said by scaredpoet:

The penetration rate is low because Verizon won't expand.

You misunderstand "penetration rate", it's not a total number that would be fixed by further rollouts, but the percentage of homes passed that become long term (not just promo seeking)full rate customers, because that is what would repay the cost of the FioS over the next 40 years.
If the take rate (another way to express penetration) is below 40% in the areas the carefully selected to build first, other areas are likely to be worse, so expanding makes the total number worse.

people shouldn't get too happy about huge fines which will eventually be repaid by customers.


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

If people would switch to FiOS, they would get their upgrade. But as you said the penetration rate of FiOS is low. That is why Verizon doesn't want to invest. Why spend money on an upgrade people are not willing to use?

But there is a difference in penetration rate when people have a choice between their current copper and moving to fiber and having nothing and moving to fiber like they are now.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

Most customers are slow to switch to a new service, where I live (NJ) many of not most areas around me have FiOS, penetration rates are low because of two factors, one the bad pr verizon got for it's billing issues (which seem to be resolved) and just when people started switching to FiOS in my area they started jacking up rates.
I know lots of people who have the service, but most people see it as the same as cable.

I'm still with FiOS because of the superior internet and PQ, but to most people it's not competitive, they either don't know or care about the higher PQ or more reliable internet and without a price incentive to get them to try out the new service, they are unlikely to try it. Most people need a price incentive to sit around for a few hours while they install the new service. Verizon's mistake was in insisting that it was a premium service and jacking up rates. They made their own problem in order to justify stopping deployment which they did to stop their short term thinking investors from complaining. They really shot themselves in the foot with short term thinking.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to ropeguru

Yes there is. But that doesn't matter to Verizon anymore. Customers made their decision. Had they all jumped on FiOS when it became available, they would almost certainly still have service because Verizon would actually be making a return on their investment.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Customer's didn't make the decision, investors did. You can't expect huge penetration rates for a completely new service immediately and definitely not when you start jacking up rates while trying to increase penetration, this was done to justify stopping the deployment which short term thinking investors had been complaining about since they initially starting deploying fiber.

When they eventually swapped out their CEO for someone who was similairly short sighted, those investors got their way, they shot themselves in the foot to justify stopping deployment.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Verizon started slowing FiOS deployment long before the quick return wireless ideology started. FiOS has been very expensive to deploy and has not made the money they expected. The return has been poor and most of the benefits such as lower maintenance have not been appreciated because Verizon still has to maintain their copper network.

Higher rates are a necessity when you want to pay off your investment.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

I'm not talking about their switch to wireless strategy, I'm talking about initial investor reactions to the idea of FiOS which can be found as far back as when they started the buildout. There's probably earlier sources but I found this from 2008

»www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/techn···all&_r=0


pittpete1

join:2009-06-12
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to silbaco

Silbaco, I don't know where you are getting your data from but read these
»www.fiercecable.com/story/shammo···12-01-24
»www.fiercecable.com/story/verizo···13-05-14
Wireline Operational Highlights

Verizon added 144,000 net new FiOS Internet connections and 134,000 net new FiOS Video connections in fourth-quarter 2012. Verizon had a total of 5.4 million FiOS Internet and 4.7 million FiOS Video connections at the end of the quarter, representing year-over-year increases of 12.6 percent and 13.3 percent, respectively.
FiOS penetration (subscribers as a percentage of potential subscribers) continued to increase. FiOS Internet penetration was 37.3 percent at the end of fourth-quarter 2012, compared with 35.5 percent at the end of fourth-quarter 2011. In the same periods, FiOS Video penetration was 33.3 percent, compared with 31.5 percent. The FiOS network passed 17.6 million premises at year-end 2012.

O and poor Verizon having to maintain copper lines.
Maintain means actually having to spend $$$$$ doesn't it.
The condition of some of the cables in NY are a wreck(i can only speak on what I've seen, not a generalization like so many seem to do)Upstate NY has led cables and paper covered wires 50 + years old.
They've made billions upon billions through the years to create what they have today and now they turn their backs on their customers and their employees.
Stop playing games with the rates and the promotions,fix the billing and continue to provide a superior product and you'll keep your customers on FIOS. If they were serious about FIOS they would also work harder on securing franchise agreements in areas where theres no video. All they want to do is attrition the current work force while raping the consumer at the same time so Lowell can go back and high 5 his executive board about their next big salary raise.
Stop drinking the koolaid people.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

people shouldn't get too happy about huge fines which will eventually be repaid by customers.

Exactly. The customers always pay one way or the other.

Lawyers like big numbers because they win regardless of which way things turn out in court. If Verizon gets fined 100k$/sub/day, chances are many Verizon will find their POTS/DSL/wireless bills increase by a few bucks per month to offset the fine, interests and capital gains that would have been expected from the same amount invested elsewhere. If Verizon pays a 2G$ fine, customers will inevitably end up paying well over 2G$ back in NPV for it over time.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Some people on Fire Island had FiOS it seems, but relatively few. Like everywhere, FiOS penetration is lackluster. It's low even where FiOS is available. Many people do not want to switch over for whatever reason. And it's not just Verizon, but many other providers are in the same boat. I know of several that have had to simply tell people they are terminating DSL, switch to Fiber or have nothing.

That percentage is actually decent, and undoubtedly the result of Verizon's extremely high prices. Their ARPU for FIOS customers is $141.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Yes there is. But that doesn't matter to Verizon anymore. Customers made their decision. Had they all jumped on FiOS when it became available, they would almost certainly still have service because Verizon would actually be making a return on their investment.

You're trying to blame customers for Verizon jacking up prices and not freeing attractive enough incentives? You are ridiculous.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to silbaco

How many single-person households (~27% of all households) are going to fork out $70+/month for wired internet?

How many families are willing to spend that amount, among other household expenses?

Clearly, not enough for Verizon to pay its bills.

Does the state have the right to force VZ to operate at a loss?
Not since 1865.

But they could conceivably require consumers to buy the product, whether they like it or not.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to sonicmerlin

Verizon has offered practically every incentive they could think up, but FiOS is never going to be cheap. Fiber deployments need to be paid off.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to pittpete1

3x.x% penetration after all these years and a hurricane that forced people over to fiber, is crap. Fiber needs some real number to make it worth while.

You can say poor Verizon and be as sarcastic as you want. That doesn't change the fact that maintaining two networks is costly and the customers are the ones that have to pay for it.



intok

join:2012-03-15
reply to elray

Wrong, they are gouging on the price, as is the case with all hardwire ISPs.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Says you. You believe $70/mth for access to the Internet is gouging? What should it be, $19.95?



Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18

said by openbox9:

Says you. You believe $70/mth for access to the Internet is gouging? What should it be, $19.95?

For Fios, no, but for sub 8 Mbps ADSL then yes it is gouging. 8 Mbps ADSL down to 3 Mbps ADSL should be under $40.00 /month.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Why? What's the cost basis? Profit margin? Why $40/mth? Is that for every ADSL provider, both large and small, or just a handful?


pittpete1

join:2009-06-12
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to silbaco

"Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) revealed that the company's FiOS TV and Internet service has achieved 50 percent penetration in Dallas, the company's first market."

Maybe you missed the 50% penetration rate article I linked to.

Sandy forced people over to fiber?
I think you have it wrong my friend.
Verizon was forcing people over to fiber way before Sandy hit.
Honestly, I don't think it is such a bad idea to ask people to make a switch in areas where both copper and fios are available.

My man, the customers pay for it no matter what.
If wireless is so cost efficient and SO profitable why are consumers paying so much for it?

You also keep talking about maintaining two networks?
The copper is rotting, Verizon isn't maintaining it.
They haven't for years.
If you are talking about the central offices and equipment, that stuff is ancient and has been paid off 100x over.
What, an old switch installed in the late 80's and some batteries?
FIOS equipment is located in these same offices as well as the fiber serving cellsites and businesses.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to intok

said by intok:

Wrong, they are gouging on the price, as is the case with all hardwire ISPs.

If this were the case, then market forces would have responded, over the past seven years, and challenged Verizon's "monopoly" status.

The price Verizon asks, is indeed, too high for the majority of potential buyers, but that doesn't translate to gouging.


intok

join:2012-03-15

The market forces are price fixing, collusion and extreme greed.



Yapoo

@att.net
reply to scaredpoet

>My only choices now are cable, or 3Mbps DSL... at least as long
>as the copper is good in my area. If... no, WHEN, it degrades
>I highly doubt Verizon will lift a finger to repair it.

You are 110% correct. I had an issue with POTS ~4 years back. After many phone calls to complain, numerous techs working on the line - sos, nothing really changed much.

Finally after more compliants, one of the supervisors who knew what was going on, actually called me (on the qt) to explain what happened. It seems Verizon replaced a bunch of copper line at a large junction box down the street from me that my calls and my internet connection was on.

It allowed them to get more traffic for less cost. They replaced the older thicker copper with smaller copper! More lines per cable. His words, not mine. So I was now hearing cross talk and the internet connection was more prone to noise.

He suggested I wait for FIOS (it's not coming to my area and when it does $$$) but that Verizon was never going to use more expensive cable when they could use cheaper stuff and get more bang for their buck. From a business pov I can understand that. However, they are screwing the public.

Some of us only have POTS or are on fixed or low incomes. What this will eventually do is remove many of the minorites, low income, etc... people from the loop (I've been beating this drum for years now). The local library is even now quite crowded with people using the high speed internet access. Sometimes you wait in line to access the PC. It'll only get worse.

The future looks bleak if you can't fork over the $$$ for phone, TV or internet service. Great way to eliminate the poor, from my point of view, from being more informed or educated. Other than ota TV and radio (nothing but spam and junk programming), you're locked out just so the corporates can make greater profits, to be better able to better bribe politicians, who will pass laws to further restrict you. Life goes on.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to intok

Greed dictates that a competitor would enter the fray and try to take a swath of the "excessive" profits, whatever those are.

That's effectively what the cable broadband industry has done, and the result is we have cheaper and faster service in over 90% of the country.



intok

join:2012-03-15

You don't think they didn't? »Telcos Vastly Overcharge Government for Snooping

They've found the current max they can charge on top of other often required services and fees where they will nickel and dime ever more money.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by intok:

You don't think they didn't? »Telcos Vastly Overcharge Government for Snooping

They've found the current max they can charge on top of other often required services and fees where they will nickel and dime ever more money.

Those charges aren't necessarily excessive, given the allegedly infrequency of the service orders and the special handling required.