Verizon CEO Admits Landlines Are Dead Company likens itself to Google as it purges rural users, COs, employees... Tipped by CurGeorge8 
Saul Hansell over at the New York Times has picked up that paper's telecom beat, and offers an interesting piece from a recent Goldman Sachs investors conference. While AT&T Boss Randall Stephenson and Qwest boss Ed Mueller are keeping their heads buried in the sand telling investors that the landline defections will eventually stop, Verizon boss Ivan Seidenberg has basically admitted the obvious: the landline, as we know it, is dead. Seidenberg even trotted out a new metaphor to explain the evolution in his thinking: Mr. Seidenberg said that his "thinking has matured" and that trying to predict when the company would stop losing voice landlines "is like the dog chasing the bus."..."Video is going to be the core product in the fixed-line business," Mr. Seidenberg declared. And the focus will move from selling bundles of video and landline to video and cellphones, he added...."(As Verizon trims landline infrastructure) we don’t look any different than Google," he said. "We can begin to look at eliminating central offices, call centers and garages." Of course Verizon's grand plan of focusing primarily on FTTH service and wireless isn't news if you've been following our reports. Verizon's focus on fiber is certainly a welcome one, given that AT&T and Qwest continue to milk copper infrastructure that offers a fraction of the throughput of fiber. It's a simple thing, but it's interesting to see Verizon finally admit that voice really is just data. Verizon's a little quicker on the draw than their baby ball compatriots, Seidenberg actually telling investors "he could have done a better job" in seeing the bigger picture sooner. However, Verizon's move comes with a dark side: the company is officially kicking rural America and a significant chunk of union workers in those markets off of the pier. Verizon's been a tear lately offloading unwanted rural markets and their debt to smaller carriers that are clearly unable to handle such massive acquisitions (Hawaii Telcom, Fairpoint, possibly Frontier). Customers who were already ignored by Verizon are now being served by carriers that have inherited shoddy copper, are bloated by Verizon debt, and can't afford even basic improvements.
|
 Tcomp
join:2008-07-29
Greenbelt, MD | Significant implications There are some pretty significant implications for what Seidenberg is saying. The statements very well may be obvious, but it's surprising to see a CEO with a heavy union presence openly discussing the elimination of "central offices and garages."
What do you think the Communications Workers of America think of those statements?
»www.telecompetitor.com/seidenber···garages/ | |
|  |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Significant implications said by Tcomp:There are some pretty significant implications for what Seidenberg is saying. The statements very well may be obvious, but it's surprising to see a CEO with a heavy union presence openly discussing the elimination of "central offices and garages." What do you think the Communications Workers of America think of those statements? » www.telecompetitor.com/seidenber···garages/ You know I'm sure blacksmiths bemoaned the arrival of the automobile, because it put most of them out of work, but that's they way it goes. | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Significant implications Absolutely on point. Verizon, as a company aimed at the future, is well-served by finding a way to turn over this ancient infrastructure to less forward-looking companies. | |
| | | | | Only problem is without landlines much of the rural areas will fall behind economically more and more. So when the big companies shuck off their landlines, we end up with bankrupt smaller carriers like Fairpoint and continue downhill as these rural area telecoms are broken down into smaller and smaller pieces. This could result in the "ghetto-i-sing" and impoverishment of large geographic areas where the idea of "telecommuting" was once thought of as a part of a "bright new future". When only the most wealthy, densely populated urban areas have access to the highest broadband speeds, businesses will quickly migrate out of these more rural areas. If this begins to happen, you can count on local and area governments entertaining and promoting the idea of regulating the broadband industry, as was the case when electrons were first being used to generate light a hundred plus years ago! | |
| | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Significant implications However, that begs the question: Should John pay more than is necessary, to subsidize Paul paying less than is necessary. There is no way around it, forcing a company like Verizon to serve all customers the same, and charging them all the same, regardless of how much benefit there is to the company in serving each customer, is nothing short of "redistribution of wealth". | |
| | | | | systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | Re: Significant implications Where have you been? Carriers already charge the same fee across their LL network. The only difference in rates is with State and local government taxes.
The Federal Government already has a tax in place that supports rural schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. It's been on LL bills for years. Without some government intervention, you couldn't drive 55 mph across this Country and the cities would be buried in human waste.
If the large carriers are allowed to "Cherry Pick' and not service surrounding rural areas, there will not be any service available to those who provide the needs of those in the cities. If you don't believe me, try to find a cow or an orange in D.C. that didn't come from the rural areas.
Why do I want to pay $.65 a min., when I get better service (unlimited calling - 24/7 LD) and rates through my LL? I don't drop LL connections, I don't have a need for batteies, and I don't have "Dead Zones."
--
Personal Theme Song:
RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows.
Rush Radio Website | |
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Significant implications Right here.
said by systems2000:The Federal Government already has a tax in place that supports rural schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. TAX. TAX. Not an unfunded mandate on the operations of a private enterprise. If you are supporting a tax, then say you're supporting a tax, and the taxpayers unions can get on your back, instead of capitalists like me.
said by systems2000:If the large carriers are allowed to "Cherry Pick' and not service surrounding rural areas, there will not be any service available to those who provide the needs of those in the cities. It isn't the carriers' fault that those areas aren't as profitable, and so there is no justification for punishing them. If you want to provide them special incentives to serve less profitable areas, to make those areas equally profitable, then do so. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? I might be missing a nuance you are trying to state, but aren't the wireless carriers and cable carriers doing the same thing? The wireless plans are all the same across the nation or within markets. Same with cable. Toss internet access into the mix. Anything sold to the mass market is essentially averaged.
Have you found a way to identify how your use tied to your bill in a manner that actually translated to your price discount against someone that used more than you on a similar pricing plan (cable, voice, internet)?
Cable, good luck telling em you only watch TV one hour a month let alone picking your channels.
Voice, closest to the ability to do so might be VOIP providers, and even then, the rate is averaged with increments on where calls terminate.
Internet..same thing.
Find me a company that does 100% contracts with their mass market customers outside of the flea market.
I don't get what your saying I guess. The market always redistributes wealth, even without regulation.
said by bicker:However, that begs the question: Should John pay more than is necessary, to subsidize Paul paying less than is necessary. There is no way around it, forcing a company like Verizon to serve all customers the same, and charging them all the same, regardless of how much benefit there is to the company in serving each customer, is nothing short of "redistribution of wealth". | |
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? I think the issue is the fact that different services we're talking about have vastly different load models. We're not comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of voice. We're comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of video. That's many orders of magnitude of a difference, rather than just one or two orders of magnitude. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? said by bicker:I think the issue is the fact that different services we're talking about have vastly different load models. We're not comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of voice. We're comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of video. That's many orders of magnitude of a difference, rather than just one or two orders of magnitude. Load models are the same, only different in determining the busy hour on the network topologies (which do differ).
Magnitudes matter not...a 1.54mbps DS1 to the internet once ran, and still does in some places, a few hundred, vs well, any 20 dollar internet connection (expensive for a 1.5 connect). We are dealing in packets vs circuits on the off-net side of any infrastructure provider's business.
10 hours of voice on dedicated connections are dirt cheap on packet/shared connections, then again, none of us are really interested in going back to party lines to save a buck, are we?
The network capacity in the provider world is built around peak, not around their highest priced customer's needs. If everyone is viewing 10 hours per internet connection or cell connection, how does it really differ from when everyone began using 240 long distance minutes per month on average?
You seem to be caught up on time...I guess I don't get it. I can easily "view", i.e. view while caching, 10 hours of video in significantly less time depending upon the encoding techniques.
Back to the original question/response....everything delivered to the mass market is typically "averaged". More expensive to try to maintain individual contracts with everyone than to just average it out. We, as people, do fit the averaging model rather nicely, generally.
The cellular ppl are all ex telco ppl, they've got the averaging covered quite well in their pricing models today, but the marketing ppl are still trying to figure out how to keep up the charade that is the current pricing...network engineering is still just network engineering, they are still designing around the busy hour. Any reason we should believe differently? | |
| | | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? said by xsiddalx:Magnitudes matter not... Magnitudes do matter in this context. | |
|
| | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Nobody is going to realistically wire rural areas for internet. The cheapest way is to do it wireless. That's why it was such a shame that wireless carriers started the 5g limits, because I know a lot of people who's internet service out in the sticks was through some sort of 3g connection.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
| | | | | | | Re: Significant implications said by NOCMan:Nobody is going to realistically wire rural areas for internet. The cheapest way is to do it wireless. That's why it was such a shame that wireless carriers started the 5g limits, because I know a lot of people who's internet service out in the sticks was through some sort of 3g connection. The wireless business still needs wires for any significant backhaul I think. If wireless were ready for prime time, why market femtocells? Makes more sense fore wireless to offload wireless traffic to the wired networks (telco or cable).
Nevertheless, many people are apparently wiring rural areas for internet.... do some digging, too lazy to post all of the links.
Greenfields are all generally FTTH, rural or urban
Overbuilds are generally FTTH (typically small independent telcos and/or munis).
Perhaps none are building for internet, but they are building for the broadband network. No one would admit a build out for the internet...the real money is in the next gen internet (a next gen cable model of sorts).
Maybe you meant to say Verizon or ATT won't be investing in rural areas? Qwest is predominantly rural and still barely invests in urban, but they are doing so slowly. People are still wowed by marketing terms like "download speeds" (no mention of actual throughput, latency, bursts, caps, etc...). That revolution will come within the next year or two I gather.
I agree that wireless is the future, but they can't do it without overbuilding the wires. Gonna take time...or they are going to need to telcos, which won't matter too much, since the wireless and wireline companies are generally the same.
But man.. "no one will realistically wire rural areas for internet"?
Yeesh, someone once said "no one will provide telephone service on the farm" and the gov had to come in and mandate the long distance company allow the local coops and businesses to interconnect to their "long distance" network. We are heading back to the 1930's in that respect. People created services where no one thought was profitable back then, I feel comfortable in stating that they can do it now (even without USF fees or subsidies).
How many areas (households) don't have choices of internet access (let's exclude satellite)? My guess is adding wireless would skew the conversation higher. | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Landlines aren't dead - just abused. I don't think landlines are dead. I think telco's have just refused to change their way of thinking when it comes to landlines. I still see the landline as a very valuable utility, but when I'm paying $15/mo. + $10/mo. in taxes, for a total of $25/mo., and see that I can get almost unlimited everything from a VOIP provider, then it's hardpress not to just switch.
Telco's need to rethink their landline business.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Landlines aren't dead - just abused. said by Rob:I don't think landlines are dead. I think telco's have just refused to change their way of thinking when it comes to landlines. I still see the landline as a very valuable utility, but when I'm paying $15/mo. + $10/mo. in taxes, for a total of $25/mo., and see that I can get almost unlimited everything from a VOIP provider, then it's hardpress not to just switch. Telco's need to rethink their landline business. Which is why it's "dead" to them. They have to work to re-invent and someone how still make money.... and they'd rather not do that. LL's will be around another 50 years at least. The other thing is it's not sexy but still makes them money, but in business sexyness wins over actually making a profit. | |
| | ncbillPremium
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC | Yep, the ridiculous amount of taxes & fees on a voice line raises my $19/month unlimited line (no metered service here) to over $30/month.
And yet I pay only $10/month for 768KB DSL (no taxes or fees on that) | |
| | | NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Landlines aren't dead - just abused. Are you kidding. My 29 dollar VZ landline ran over 64 dollars a month. No call waiting, nothing but dialtone for my security system.
Switched to vonage once FIOS came out.. much happier.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
| glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Seriously that is just a joke. I remember having a landline just for proof of address purpose when applying for some stuff. My plan was the lowest one $9 for dial tone and each call $0.07 but after the taxes where higher than the $9 monthly plan I had to cancel that crap. | |
| |  ajc18aka IGnatius T Foobar
join:2000-05-06
Mount Kisco, NY | Slowly but surely, telcos *are* changing the way they think about landlines. Actually, what they're changing is the way they think about *voice*. In the not too distant future, voice will be simply one more application that runs over the global data network.
--
Art Cancro
UNCENSORED! BBS »uncensored.citadel.org | |
| | | | vonage just capped "unlimited plan" at 5000 minutes... 14.99 a month... rather have cell service.. and vonage also just added new overage fees and all for consumers... | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Verizon/Vodaphone Marriage said by CurGeorge8: Apparently CEO Vittorio Colao isn't all to pleased with the fact that VZW has failed to pay dividends for the past four years. To not pay dividends is treason! | |
| | | NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Verizon/Vodaphone Marriage Companies that do not pay out dividends are doomed to have their stocks burned by day traders. There's no incentive to go long on the stocks if there's no return other than selling once it's gone up.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Lets cry a river I would still have a tradition POTs line if it had just half the features of my voip line and was under $20 including all BS taxes and fees.
Maybe they should wake up. They have at least a little competition now. The old bell monopoly attitude of high prices for limited services and even higher prices for additional services like callerid just doesn't cut it. | |
| | | | Re: Lets cry a river Hmm, I dont think VOIP providers and the Bells are playing with the same deck dcurrey. If your line is damaged, the VOIP doesnt have to roll a truck. Neither do they pay taxes on the facilities they have in the field.
Here in Manatee County, FL, Verizon is the second largest taxpayer after Tropicana. I wonder where the VOIP providers lay in that list??
The Bells need to change and that is no lie. However, to think they and the VOIP are dealing with the same issues is wrong. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Lets cry a river True, however I can get an unlimited wireless phone (Verizon based too) with caller ID, call waiting, 3-way calling and voicemail for $40 per month. Why this isn't doable on a wireline from the exact same carrier is beyond me. | |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
1 edit | What? Eliminating COs, garages and call centers? WTF?
The last mile plant has to be aggregated somewhere. Unless they're going to run every strand of wire back to corporate headquarters, how are they planning on eliminating COs?
...and that last mile has to be serviced....whether it's fiber, copper, coax or even wireless. Which requires field techs, and vehicles for those field techs. So where are those people going to work out of if the "garages" are shut down?
The call centers? Aren't they there to service the customers? So, while the product being sold will change, Verizon will still have, presumably, just as many if not more customers ...requiring call centers to answer customer inquiries.
Umm. Google is a software company selling, primarily, virtual goods. And Verizon is....not. Not to mention, most of Google's public-facing products are free....and to call what google provides for these free services "support" is an insult. Google does offer more traditional forms of support for customers of its paid products....but that support is sorely lackluster by all accounts...so despite all things that Google does well, using them as a model of customer service is....a mistake.
Verizon has made a lot of good decisions. Especially compared to AT&T and Qwest. But its bad decisions vastly outnumber its good ones....and only looks halfway reasonable in comparison to its retarded cousins in ILEC land.
Ivan, like most CEOs of large corporations, can't think past his next bonus check. I think someone should tell him that they're still in the dumb pipe business....telco video is a mistake that has no long term future, voice has become a commodity and is being quickly relegated to the status of "just another app" that travels over their dumb pipe network.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
| |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: What? said by kapil:...and that last mile has to be serviced....whether it's fiber, copper, coax or even wireless. Verizon may be planning on doing what Sprint, MetroPCS, & others did and other telcos are considering - outsourcing the mgt of their infrastructure to Ericsson or some other 3rd party provider( a non-union provider).
»www.ericsson.com/ericsson/press/···69.shtml
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: What? said by ThrowDemsOut:said by kapil:...and that last mile has to be serviced....whether it's fiber, copper, coax or even wireless. Verizon may be planning on doing what Sprint, MetroPCS, & others did and other telcos are considering - outsourcing the mgt of their infrastructure to Ericsson or some other 3rd party provider( a non-union provider). » www.ericsson.com/ericsson/press/···69.shtml I think this was more of sprint management , admitting finally that they just don't have the talent to do this.
Either way , I'm sure more providers will start doing the same very soon.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: What? said by BosstonesOwn:they just don't have the talent to do this. Sprint's problem was always bad executive management - bad marketing, customer support, pricing decisions etc.
Their engineering talent always has been and always will be first rate.
They're always first to launch new stuff. PCS, text messaging, picture messaging, data, video, color displays, wimax, 3g, femtocells, "anymobile"....this company has a track record of leaping into new technologies and getting them to market.
Of course, what the rest of the company does with those new products after the engineers get them out the door has always been a clusterfuck....but they're trying to fix that.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
|
|  DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1 | said by kapil:The last mile plant has to be aggregated somewhere. Unless they're going to run every strand of wire back to corporate headquarters, how are they planning on eliminating COs? If you have an FTTH network it requires less COs. (I think) | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: What? GPON is 32 customers per node, or less, in Verizon's implementation.
That said, running everything over IP all the way to regional data centers is MUCH flatter/easier than doing voice switching at the CO etc. | |
| | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: What? The land line will still be there but it will be Uverse or Fios and VOIP. The old switched office is on the way out but you still need a connect point even for ethernet based networks.
Many of the landlines are already on FTTN networks if you are more then a mile from the CO at least in the old Bell South region your POTs line travels over a digital connection part of the way. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: What? Fair enough, though again the infrastructure is MUCH simpler with the newer technologies. | |
| | | | | systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | I'm ~19,000' from the C.O. and it's all copper. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| While I agree on most points , some I don't.
I think Verizons good decisions have outweighed the bad.
Think it from a ceo perspective , he dumped the bad and kept the good areas. Areas where they were eating up cash just to maintain.
Moving to fios was a great move. Video is not a bad move.
Personally , some changes I would make. Push fiber to all neighborhoods while the economy is down and you are still profiting , it costs less to roll out right now.
Take advantage of it. Call centers , close out of country ones and bring it all to the us , bad economy and all people want jobs here and are willing to take it.
Garages , once more fiber is rolled close garages and consolidate them all to the biggest piece of land you have. With in range of the service area of course. Some people will be laid off , it's just easier to maintain the fiber.
Open small local offices providing billing centers and places to drop off boxes and pick up boxes. Give them a place to pay all their verizon bills.
This would be providing a future.
While they are a "dumb pipe" provider they also provide video. I'd like to see the push to fiber and migrate all their voice customers to voip. After 4 or 5 years the net will exceed the expenditure.
Verizon has made some great decisions , if frontier and all these companies go bankrupt , Verizon can swoop in and grab the company for pennies on the dollar and they dumped most of their debt. Net win for verizon and they don't have to pay the huge amounts of debt they had.
Is it dirty , yes , but , it's the way business is done now.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | |  NiarlanExcelsiorPremium
join:2002-11-09
Manville, NJ | Re: What? I don't think VZ has out of country call centers. I know VZW doesn't.
Nia | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: What? said by Niarlan:I don't think VZ has out of country call centers. I know VZW doesn't. Nia Some are supposedly in canada. They may be upper peninsula Michigan residents , but some say canada.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
|  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by kapil:Eliminating COs, garages and call centers? WTF? The last mile plant has to be aggregated somewhere. Yup! I ditched POTS last December and never looked back. I converted my Verizon POTS/DSL line to 1M Naked DSL. My Verizon bill is now a clean Tax-Free, $19.99/Mo. and price-stable because of the 2 year contract.
However! My DSL rides in on copper, from a CO. My last repair required VZ to show up with 2 men and run over 500 feet of new outside wire. Where I live there is NO option other than VZ; there is no cable, no fiber, no Wifi, only ancient copper. I am sure this is the case for much of the country. To say the future of copper-based services is dead is futuristic. Until better and faster wireless services become available to a much wider coverage area, copper will be an absolute necessity.
Bob
--
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson
"Lighthouses are more useful than Churches" -- Benjamin Franklin
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" -- John Adams
| |
| | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | Re: What? For those who think that VoIP will always be tax free... I really hate to break it to you. Washington will not give up that tax revenue easily. So, what's to do? Easy. When many states started losing 'franchise fees' due to customers going to DBS for TV... they passed laws enacting franchise fees for satellite dishes. Of course, doing that exposes those franchise fees for what they really are - just taxes. The notion that they're needed to pay for right-of-way usage of laying land-lines is out the window in that case.
Right now internet video streams (including voice) are not taxed (at least not at the federal level). With more and more people migrating to VoIP and away from POTS, don't be surprised if Congress decides that they need to level the playing field, and start excising those taxes on VoIP service as well. | |
|
|  elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD
3 edits | I work for Verizon, CWA member and work out of one of those garages they are looking at closing.
As for the last mile and aggregating it-- CO density up to this point had been dictated by the limits of copper. With fiber in the local loop, the ability to "aggregate" and transport the local traffic longer distances, with smaller cheaper equipment, the use of soft switches-- is going to cause the landscape of outside plant telcom to change. And it should. Garages need to be closed, and they should. The closings are not going to result in job loss just movement because the plant still needs to be built and maintained.
As for other comments about land line and voip and telcoms inability to compete. It is not a fair comparison. As touched on in other post voip providers have no infrastructure, they own some servers, switches, lease some bandwdith...
Pots lines: A copper pair on average cost $700.00 just to place and splice. That is after the telco pays to place poles, dig trenches, place manholes, conduit or what ever structure is going to be used for placing the cable. The copper pair then either goes to a SLC system ($100k+) and then to the CO or straight to the CO. In the CO is millions of dollars of multiplexing, power, switching and transport equipment. To hook up a new customer requires a truck roll at an average cost of $110.00 per hour loaded cost. A cot must make the physical connection in the CO. All of this just to get a customer hooked up to the local office-- millions more in equipment to to transport call locally and many billions more to do long distance switching and transport.
The telcos have decades long investment in these structures. It took the telcos about 40 years to make the network fully digital, 1964 (the year the first digital line carrier went into the field-- the first T1) till some where in the '90s that the last non digital switchs went away. It took that long because it is incredibly expensive to do, lot of the work can not be done quickly, it was a massive transformation of a live working network with out service interruption (we spend huge amounts of time and resources to avoid service interruptions during migrations and upgrades.) and tech changed and evolved as the upgrade went along. Point being the telcos can not transform this massive network over night, in the next year or years. That is why fios still does pots, VZ would love to do a full migration to ip telephony, they are working on it but VZ unlike voip start ups-- has to be ready to service millions from the time the switch is thrown.
Comparing voip to pots is like comparing a virtual machine to an actual PC.
edits- typos | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by kapil:Eliminating COs, garages and call centers? WTF? The last mile plant has to be aggregated somewhere. Unless they're going to run every strand of wire back to corporate headquarters, how are they planning on eliminating COs? Ivan let slip the plant to get the FCC or PUC to allow them to abandon copper plant and give everyone Verizon Wireless ATAs or Verizon Wireless desktop phones. 
...and that last mile has to be serviced....whether it's fiber, copper, coax or even wireless. Which requires field techs, and vehicles for those field techs. So where are those people going to work out of if the "garages" are shut down?
Per call contractors 100% of the time.
The call centers? Aren't they there to service the customers? So, while the product being sold will change, Verizon will still have, presumably, just as many if not more customers ...requiring call centers to answer customer inquiries.
He ment the american ones. Plus getting rid of the "incoherent caller so transfer to human" timeout, so now you can NEVER get to a human without going through the talk-back IVR.
Umm. Google is a software company selling, primarily, virtual goods. And Verizon is....not.
Time to sell FIOS plant to Frontier or Fairpoint, then sign a 100 year exclusive lease back agreement, make sure its bankruptcy proof.
Ivan, like most CEOs of large corporations, can't think past his next bonus check. I think someone should tell him that they're still in the dumb pipe business....telco video is a mistake that has no long term future, voice has become a commodity and is being quickly relegated to the status of "just another app" that travels over their dumb pipe network.
FIOS VOD already goes outside FIOS internet speed cap/different QOS. Watch for more net neutrality violations. There is a VOIP killer technology that some national ILECs in 3rd world countries use, it only lets 1500 byte packets through (HTTP traffic works fine, VOIP doesn't), with variable latency buffers to induce jitter (HTTP traffic works fine, VOIP doesn't). | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Last I checked you can't get TV channels a la carte over the internet. Therefore telcoTV isn't going to be "just another service" for quite awhile yet. | |
|
| | Lower my FIOS Then lower my FIOS rates. I pay $5 more for not having Verizon Home Phone Service.
And while your're at it, overhaul the online stuff to not require a phone # as ID - I don't have one with you guys. | |
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Smart Move Verizon, and prior to it Bell Atlantic and Nynex, were smart enough to realize back in the mid 1990s that landlines were going the way of the dinosaur and made investments in wireless.
The way I see it, things like FIOS are just icing on the cake. I predict that within 10 years landlines as we know them will be a thing of the past.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | I hope they are not dead yet Living in hurricane area, I need to have a land line. I went through hurricane wilma and lost all utilities except for my landline for around 2 weeks. If I had voip then, I would have been out of luck. Also most of the voip providers are not compatible with home alarms. I know because I have checked. Around my area comcast is but sure as hell if the power went out, there goes the cable and anything riding on it. So, no, I am not ready to give up my landline just yet.
--
brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Esteban Colberto for President of Cuba | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Deadman walking... They can have my POTS line when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!  | |
| | heimdm
join:2008-06-22
Martinsville, IN | Re: Deadman walking... Keep in mind that large providers like ATT and Verizon do not get USF funds. So by spinning the rural areas off they are eligible for federal fundering. Then in several years after additional investment has been made in the small lec that is loaded with debt from buying the lines from verizon will go bankrupt and verizon and get the upgraded area back for cheap. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Deadman walking... said by heimdm:Keep in mind that large providers like ATT and Verizon do not get USF funds. AT&T and Verizon most certainly do get USF funds for their rural lines but it's a lower amount per line. Also when Verizon spins off their rural lines the subsidies stay the same. Fairpoint would be in much better shape if it could collect the same USF subsidies on the former Verizon lines as it does on its other lines. | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Deadman walking... Rotary, tone, or operator only? | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Hopefully Seidenberg doesn't think Verizon=Google ...and the article merely says that, in the end, the structures merely look the same. Still, I'm not sure Seidenberg really gets it that his role and Google's role are complementary, as in two different parts of the same ecosystem.
said by Commenter to NYTimes Blog :
Sadly Mr. Seidenberg still doesn’t get it. The fact is wired is better than wireless. Instead of abandoning traditional telephony, he should comprehend its superior virtues and model FIOS accordingly. Unfortunately, telephone people have historically been behind the curve when it came to digital and “data processing”. If he were to carry his absurdity to its conclusion, why spend billions on FIOS - simply go all wireless. Frankly, I am alarmed at his way of thinking - infrastructure does matter. Copper to the end user is an advantage that FIOS cannot, without rethinking, duplicate. What these people don’t get is that their function is simply as a delivery mechanism. FIOS is just another cable, albeit with higher bandwidth potential. Why are telephone companies getting into television programming and internet applications anyway? Doesn’t anyone debate these things? What is Verizon’s mission statement? Why is Verizon competing with cable operators? Why isn’t Verizon sharing its infrastructure with cable operators and vice versa? Finally, where are the public/shareholders on this? Shouldn’t they have a voice in how these vast sums are spent?
— Harold Hofmann ...exactly. Verizon should be providing connectivity services to everyone. Don't worry what's on the wire, just keep building capacity and Verizon could be the last-mile provider connecting numerous Multi-channel video operators to their customers.
Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Hopefully Seidenberg doesn't think Verizon=Google Yeah, I couldn't tell if the reference to Google was to pull on the heart strings of investors by making a bizarre comparison, or if Seidenberg's really confused and still sees Verizon as both the conduit and the content with Google playing public enemy number one. | |
|
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter
| I Can See Why The pricing is indeed high for POTS, unless you have a pretty basic feature set.
Via AT&T, I do have a POTS line, and I also have nearly every single feature available. This includes the ability to call anywhere in the country for as long as I want, without any usage charges. Per-minute charges only kick in if I make International calls. It's a "bundle" price, where I get all those features for less than the cost of purchasing each of them separately. However, the features are grossly overpriced to begin with.
So what do I pay for it all? about $73 / mo. (after taxes). No DSL either, because I'm too far from the C.O. and DSL is slow anyway.
If I wanted basic POTS plus a couple features and unlimited local calling, I seem to remember that the cost would have been about $25-$30/mo.
So why do I persist? Line-power, that's why. The phone will keep working even if the power goes out. I've often considered downgrading the POTS to something more basic, and then using VOIP for long distance. However, I never quite do for a few reasons:
- If the power goes out, I lose the ability to make long distance calls cheaply.
- VOIP providers aren't bound to the same reliability standards. I expect, and see POTS work at pretty much all hours of the day and night. VOIP providers often have downtime for hours, for a "maintenance window." Since I have weird hours at times, that can be a problem.
- If instead of $73/mo., it's instead $30/mo. (basic POTS + two features) plus $20-$30 for unlimited VOIP, in the end I don't save that much.
- If I used multiple VOIP providers, I'd burn up the very small savings and still spend just as much as before. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | I need my Landline ALIVE I need ways to get out of Hughesnet but no phone company cares about rural people. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: I need my Landline ALIVE Co-ops do. Problem is, most places aren't on co-op phone service, and service where it is available isn't FiOS speeds or VZ DSL pricing. | |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| Why isn't there a cell phone bundle If they were going to focus on FTTH and wireless, why did FIOS eliminate their bundle with cell service without a land line.
Now the only way to get cell service bundled on the bill is to get a landline, Internet and TV, then they will put the cell service on your bill. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Why isn't there a cell phone bundle Weird, I thought they still had the cell + internet + TV bundling... | |
| | | aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why isn't there a cell phone bundle said by iansltx:Weird, I thought they still had the cell + internet + TV bundling... It doesn't show up online, and I was also told I would need to have home voice service to get. | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | in the near future Ivan will be the only "employee" left and will be doing all those fios installs by himself. | |
| mh8199
join:2008-10-08
Sharon Hill, PA | you should see it INSIDE the company after this went down today the company announced that it is putting ZERO dollars into the copper network (meaning installs, repairs, etc). they asked techs to work the weekend then told them all today that they didnt need them afterall. turns out the company meant they didnt need them for copper work. so after that f up they called all the techs back to work for the weekend. this is all over the vz east region...
people always blame the unions for the companies whoes but in reality management can manage to even tell the techs the correct instructions.
fact is at this point is you are on copper or dsl you are s.o.l. if there is a problem.
the company is so shortsighted that they dont realize that todays copper customers are tomorrows fios subs.
the fios side needs to be regulated because if it is allowed to run wild you will be at the companys mercy if a problem occurs.
good luck, ivan, hope you have a sunrise meter | |
| | | Verizon = landline killer? Selling off rural markets, removing copper wiring with FiOS installs and ridiculous wireless deals with tons of free minutes makes the death of landlines all Verizon's doing. | |
| | | the end to big phone companies thank you george W bush for not renewing the telecom act of 1997. its all your falt this is all happening now. the big got bigger, now they want to get rid of the petty. what a conservitive approch. it really got us far, didnt it? | |
| | | Verizon == Comcast? I understand that many on DSLR are incapable of enjoying their porn unless it comes over fiber connection... but many of you are living in a dream world. Unless you're in a wealthy urban area, Verizon will never install fios.
Also, what I read from the article is that Verizon is going to turn into a cable TV company. But I think cable as we know it is dead in the water. I can already watch what I want but don't get any longer (due to no cable) on iTunes or Hulu for free or nearly free (watching a commercial, but fewer than on cable TV...). Unless Verizon plans to block those services, I don't see how they are going to be able to sell that stuff except to complete morons... oh wait, carry on, Ivan, carry on. I forgot that most people are stupid.
Does verizon really charge over $10 per month in fees on home phone service (a.k.a. "landline")? That is ridiculous! I just checked my Qwest bill, and for phone and DSL both, I had $10 TOTAL in fees AND taxes for 2 1/2 months, so just under $5 per month including Uncle Sam's cut. I think the fees here are less than they were on my post paid cell phone with VZW. But you never hear people bitch about that... nor the 20¢ per text message or the $20 per month plan. | |
| | | | Re: Verizon == Comcast? said by cyclone_z:Does verizon really charge over $10 per month in fees on home phone service (a.k.a. "landline")? That is ridiculous! yes they do. I have the most basic verizon landline..$16.00. But add all the fees it comes to $27.00.
--
brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Esteban Colberto for President of Cuba | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Verizon should start to be competitive.. and creative! POTS is not the communications panacea it used to be. The northeast blackout had COPPER phones lines dead in the water for days.. so, understand this if you have a real emergency you need a backup plan (and disaster, grab and go kit). Being complacent about relying on cell, cable & telco to get help will leave you in the lurch just at your time of greatest need. In that case.. the cost savings of VOIP is a better deal for the consumer... provided they have backups (not just telecom backup batteries-- old school/two-way radios).
Verizon is being lazy and complacent in its vision for the FTTP network. They have tried and failed to evolve their business model in all three areas-- phone, cable and internet. The tuff talk about competition, lowering prices, and other deceptions cost the company much needed revenue for growth. This perception of high price, but high quality is not all it's cracked up to be.. it's arrogant and a bit Apple'esque IMO. Now, the season for that kind of business model has come and gone.. so if they don't want to see the gains they've made reverse, they better get down to doing the hard work of making good on the promises at it's inception of the FIOS network and stop trying to evolve it back towards an AT&T. | |
|
| |
|
|
Greed, Greed, Greed
The Bell Heads do not seem to get it. Their monopoly is history. Consumers now have choices for voice communication. Unless the telephone companies upgrade their outside plant and reduce their prices they are in fact doomed. When the Bell System was broken up the Incumbent Telephone Companies were granted unprecedented permission to charge customers an additional below line fee by the FCC, though their rates were regulated by State Agencies.
