Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial Competition is everywhere, there's nothing to see here... Tipped by Bob61571 
As we mentioned yesterday, Verizon's engaged in a new public relations offensive aimed at making pals with the new Obama Administration and preventing any new consumer protection laws from taking root. Earlier this week the company argued that consumer protections would prevent them from offering things like parental controls -- and now they've unveiled a new video shot by their policy and PR department claiming how competitive, robust and super-awesome the U.S broadband market is. Back in the real world, the best data we have available to us (given Verizon has worked for decade to block any and all attempts at accurate data collection) shows the broadband market here remains mediocre in terms of price, speed and penetration. Verizon also apparently forgets they just sold off a huge swath of rural networks to Fairpoint and Frontier that were apparently so "competitive," they weren't worth upgrading or keeping. While prices have dropped 37.5% globally this year according to research firm Point Topic, they've remained flat in the U.S. despite the dropping cost of providing service. Why is that? Monopoly and duopoly market control and a lack of the very competition Verizon insists is so prevalent. While Verizon deserves kudos for deploying fiber to the home, Verizon's policy and PR guys have played a major role in ensuring coverage and competition gaps never get fixed -- by consistently pretending they don't exist. Given Verizon operates one of the most successful lobbying and PR operations in any industry, the well-lobbied government has, by proxy, pretended for a decade that coverage and competition problems don't exist. Of course from Verizon's perspective the market is competitive, since they've hidden uncompetitive markets from view. They've been selling under-served rural markets, while passing franchise reform laws that lets them ignore wide swaths of under-served America for the foreseeable future. Verizon's video also strangely omits how Verizon has worked hard to strip consumer protection laws wherever possible, while lobbying for a decade to ban towns and cities from wiring themselves with broadband -- even when no private company wants to. Hopefully the lawmakers Verizon is targeting with their latest PR and lobbying assault are a little better versed in history (and reality) than Verizon is.
|
 me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Oh come on! "how competitive, robust and super-awesome the U.S broadband market is."
In some big cities MAYBE, but for the most part NO. More lies from big ISPs who want less consumer protection to get more money from us.
If it is so competitive out there why are MANY places in the US only able to Satellite or dial-up? And why did they sell a some of areas to Fairpoint and Frontier? | |
| | | Competitve and robust... it would be that way if VZ didn't cherrypick. | |
|  |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Competitve and robust... Why would a company want to invest in a city that doesnt have as much potential earning as another city? If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. | |
| | |  IT GuyOw, My BallsPremium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
 ·Comcast
| Re: Competitve and robust... And why would a company try to prevent a rural town from building their own infrastructure if that company has no interest in providing service for said town?
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Competitve and robust... Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. | |
| | | | | IT GuyOw, My BallsPremium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Competitve and robust... That was more of a rhetorical question... My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you control the market and have the money to lobby those making the rules, of coarse). LOL
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
| | | | | | | said by openbox9:Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. So? If a company isn't willing to step up to the plate and provide reasonable broadband speeds and prices, then they should have no recourse to stop someone else from doing it. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Competitve and robust... Perhaps you missed the "establish precedence" part of my statement. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Not taxpayer money, bonds. It's not city-subsidized, though you're right that there's no profit motive by the city and that scares for-profit companies. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Competitve and robust... Who floats the bonds more often than not? | |
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Competitve and robust... Who has floated the bonds so far on a muni fiber deployment? | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Competitve and robust... The taxpayers most of the time from what I've read. | |
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Competitve and robust... Give me a specific instance, thanks. | |
|
| | | | said by baineschile:If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. If everyone lived in the urban areas, how do you proposed that we grow the food this nation consumes? Fully automated farming hasn't been perfected yet.
The problem with the logic in your post is that it assumes that everyone lives in the rural areas purely by choice alone. Necessity dictates that folks live in rural areas and those folks shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world purely by the accident of their location.
Those folks should have access to a modern communications infrastructure and the providers should either provide it or let localities provide it. Problem is that providers want neither.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Competitve and robust... said by NetAdmin1:said by baineschile:If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. ... your post ... assumes that everyone lives in the rural areas purely by choice alone. Necessity dictates that folks live in rural areas and those folks shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world purely by the accident of their location. Those folks should have access to a modern communications infrastructure ... They're not cut off, and their location IS a choice, not "an accident", or a necessity. Nor is broadband a necessity.
They DO have broadband option(s). You just don't like them, and you don't want to pay the rural premium.
Verizon is not holding rural areas hostage without service, as you and others imply. Instead, they've sold off a majority of those holdings to the likes of Fairpoint / Frontier / Carlyle.
As for the OP, he's hit the nail on the head: Move.
Back in the day, I moved many a business concern, lock-stock-and-barrel, from GTE to Pacific Telephone locations, in order that they had dialtone, to stay in business. It wasn't a hard sell. Service was so bad, even the city evicted GTE.
If you have children in Los Angeles, you move to a school district other than LAUSD if you don't want to pay private school tuition. (Palos Verdes rocks!).
If you don't have broadband service to your liking, you either move to it, wait for it, make it happen (plant some poles, run some cable, form a Wisp, etc), or do without. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Competitve and robust... How's your internet right now? Running smoothly? Out here the least jittery connection is EvDO.
Also, Verizon IS holding some areas hostage. They've apparently forgoten my town exists; no DSL, no fiber, no selling out to another area, no infrastructure improvements.
And by no DSL, I mean Verizon flat-out doesn't have a DSLAM in the CO...in town! | |
| | | | | | | said by elray:If you don't have broadband service to your liking, you either move to it, wait for it, make it happen (plant some poles, run some cable, form a Wisp, etc), or do without. If you read the entirety of my post instead of half-ass comprehending it, you would have seen that I advocated that folks do something. Problem is that incumbents, including Verizon, are working very hard to prevent localities that are under-served from doing just that - building the infrastructure that the likes of Verizon and ATT don't want to build.
And just to correct you, people living in rural areas is very necessary. I'd love to see you buy and plow 1000+ acres of land into a corn field in the middle of LA. Seriously, the food you eat doesn't come from the supermarket, it comes from the farms that are spread throughout rural America.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | | |  TomClancyFreedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | Re: Competitve and robust... said by NetAdmin :
Seriously, the food you eat doesn't come from the supermarket, it comes from the farms that are spread throughout rural America. NO! You're lying! The supermarkets pull the food out of their asses, I've seen it myself.
--
Freedom isn't free! | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Competitve and robust... Guess I won't be shopping where you shop..... | |
|
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NetAdmin1:Problem is that incumbents, including Verizon, are working very hard to prevent localities that are under-served from doing just that - building the infrastructure that the likes of Verizon and ATT don't want to build. And just to correct you, people living in rural areas is very necessary. Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice.
If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple.
Verizon is NOT preventing people from forming Coops, or Wisps from competing, or munis inviting overbuilders. Verizon's monopoly right extends only to its Fios coverage, and even there, they have at least two discounting resellers. | |
| | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Competitve and robust... said by elray:Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice. If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple. Look at you, making up terms on the spot... "Urban broadband". What on earth is that?
All I have to say is that, thankfully, people with your attitude toward rural areas didn't stop rural electrification. I live in an urban area, but understand the benefits that project brought to the rest of the nation. Unlike you, I can see the potential benefits that rural broadband can bring to the nation as well.
Verizon is NOT preventing people from forming Coops, or Wisps from competing, or munis inviting overbuilders. Verizon's monopoly right extends only to its Fios coverage, and even there, they have at least two discounting resellers.
You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to the whole muni-debate because legislation has been proposed in both the US Congress and a number of state houses, back by all of the major phone companies, that would prohibit muni projects. Do some research. Look up how the incumbents have all challenged muni projects of the course of the last couple of years, sometimes successfully.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Competitve and robust... said by NetAdmin1:said by elray:Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice. If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple. Look at you, making up terms on the spot... "Urban broadband". What on earth is that? All I have to say is that, thankfully, people with your attitude toward rural areas didn't stop rural electrification. Unlike you, I can see the potential benefits that rural broadband can bring to the nation as well. You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to the whole muni-debate because legislation has been proposed in both the US Congress and a number of state houses, back by all of the major phone companies, that would prohibit muni projects. Read my post again.
Verizon DOES NOT oppose overbuilders, Wisps, or coops.
As for the "muni-debate", yes I'm quite familiar with it.
Let me get this right: Verizon has invested tens of billions of dollars both in its original network, and more billions upgrading it, but any impatient local government can tap the taxpayers to open up their own, never-profitable competing enterprise? Sorry, but that's unfair competition, and is/should remain illegal.
Of course telco would fight it.
I have direct experience with municipal broadband.
In my town, we have both a city fiber system, and a city WiFi system. Both have consumed millions of dollars, and neither is yet accessible to the public - and the fiber system is ten years old! Most city WiFi efforts are spectacular failures - perhaps equally attributable to the technology and government sloth, but universally a waste of money, and strand the public with not only the expense but chase away the potential Wisp, Coop, or other for-profit venture that would dare risk entry into a marginal marketplace.
I have plenty of critiques for VZ, AT&T, and the cablecos, and that includes last-mile monopolistic and anti-competitive practices, deliberate neglect, denial of service and retaliatory behaviors But the solution is more competitors, not taxing to create another government bureaucracy.
I don't oppose rural broadband. You're right, I don't see any national benefit to it, but I don't oppose it. I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Competitve and robust... said by elray: I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. And unlike people who blindly stick to the free market, competition solves EVERYTHING dogma, I look at the reality that some areas will never be profitable, the free market isn't ALWAYS the solution and that no option should be eliminated. There is a reason that government agencies are involved in certain services and it is because those services just are unprofitable and can't be made profitable. On the same token, if an area is unprofitable enough that even small operators won't touch it, then no one should stand in the way of a local effort to get service, even if it is run by the local government. Local action by people in their communities was one of the concepts that stated this nation.
The free market and competition dogma works for the most part, but in instances where it won't work, trotting it out as an excuse to stand in the way of local action doesn't hold water.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Competitve and robust... said by NetAdmin1:said by elray: I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. And unlike people who blindly stick to the free market, competition solves EVERYTHING dogma, I look at the reality that some areas will never be profitable, the free market isn't ALWAYS the solution and that no option should be eliminated. There is a reason that government agencies are involved in certain services and it is because those services just are unprofitable and can't be made profitable. On the same token, if an area is unprofitable enough that even small operators won't touch it, then no one should stand in the way of a local effort to get service, even if it is run by the local government. Local action by people in their communities was one of the concepts that stated this nation. Local action is fine, but not by government. Form a coop. Having the public purse strings finance the operation means there is no incentive for efficiency, nor respect for the public/customers.
I know free market doesn't apply to all situations, especially the last mile, which is a "natural" monopoly - there are narrow cases for regulation. Ironically, it is regulation, requiring telco to provide services, that forms part of the basis of the argument against your proposal.
I've been around long enough to see what happens when we ask government to take up a task, rather than charter a coop or investor-owned entity which is responsive to its customers. It is a recipe for fraud, waste, abuse, and of course, more taxation. It is also an invitation to retribution. The incumbent may have plans to install/upgrade broadband, but the GSE's announcement will de-prioritize the deployment.
VZ and the ILECs asks to "stand in the way" of government competition, because it is their franchise, and government charged them to serve the area for POTS. Undercutting the ILEC or VZ will deprive them of operating revenues at the same time they're required to provide service. One might think the same argument applies to a coop, but it doesn't - the coop can't cross-subsidize itself through taxation, and therefore, sell below cost without consequence.
Do you think, for a moment, that Verizon would deploy FIOS if every local government announced their intent to build a municipal fiber system? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Competitve and robust... said by elray:Local action is fine, but not by government. Form a coop. Having the public purse strings finance the operation means there is no incentive for efficiency, nor respect for the public/customers. The models of many muni projects I've seen don't preclude private enterprise. The setup is such that the local government owns the right of ways and the physical infrastructure and local ISPs and co-ops lease capacity. The municipality need only maintain the infrastructure. This model works. It eliminates the last mile monopoly on services that is one of the problems plaguing networks owned by the incumbents.
A third party who owns and rents out the network to any provider who can afford to lease capacity is the best model as demonstrated by the shortcomings of the current model of leasing networks.
Do you think, for a moment, that Verizon would deploy FIOS if every local government announced their intent to build a municipal fiber system? Absolutely not. But truth be told, the best answer to the question is, would every local government deploy an FTTH system if the local carrier was delivering networks that are modern and up to date? And the response to that would be, "No."
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Where's the cherry picking data? I'm preparing to move into a neighborhood in northern VA that's relatively affluent and I won't have access to FiOS or Verizon DSL. I could have purchased a house in a lesser neighborhood that was cabled with FiOS. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Competitve and robust... Verizon only picks cheries on the east side of the tree  | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  When did Verizon start passing laws??
They've been selling under-served rural markets, while passing franchise reform laws that lets them ignore wide swaths of under-served America for the foreseeable future. 1st - Unless the laws of the US have changed, Verizon has not passed any laws that I am aware of. They may have lobbied for some changes to franchise regulations in some states, but that is about it.
2nd - The changes in the franchise laws were an improvement to the current situation where every little whistle stop township could hold up progress with franchise demands bearing no relationship to actually providing and regulating TV service. Competition actually increases in those states where state franchise regulations replaced local regulations.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: When did Verizon start passing laws?? LaimJunket I can agree with your 2nd premise
But your first is total bullsh*t. Oh no Verizon doesn't pass any law, no they just lobby, wine, and dine, contribute to war-chests, use the Courts, strong arm, and whatever else they have to do to get what they want. I come from a state, Wyoming, that has always been screwed over by Telco's . The only reason why Cheyenne has the DSL service it does is because of the telecomm infrastructure that has installed over the years because of all of the H bombs, missiles, command and control and comm lines to what is now the Air Force Space Command. Having said that Qwest screws us over in service, and services. I live 44 mile north of Ft Collins and I see what they are offered, stuff I can't get here. Don't try to feed us a line about passing laws, they get what they want one way or another.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by ThrowDemsOut:» Verizon Continues Proud History Of DenialThey've been selling under-served rural markets, while passing franchise reform laws that lets them ignore wide swaths of under-served America for the foreseeable future. 1st - Unless the laws of the US have changed, Verizon has not passed any laws that I am aware of. They may have lobbied for some changes to franchise regulations in some states, but that is about it. You are right, that is misleading. Is should have stated they BOUGHT laws to prevent local people from bypassing corporate greed and enacting municipal systems and to bypass local oversight.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | |  BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | That is like saying the US wasn't fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. The whores in Washinton are mere proxies for corporate interests.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| | . I continue to patiently wait for about 5 years from now when prices are likely to dramatically change for the better once penetration and competition begins to actually exist. Right now it's pathetic. | |
| BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Competitive? Sure, a little But certainly Verizon was no help in that. They've done nothing but try to interfere with comeptition including succeeding in getting their fiber exempted from line sharing despite them using public rights of way and not allowing people to go back to copper without a fight.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Competitive? Sure, a little Cable uses ROWs. Only TWC allows another ISP on the coax (EarthLink). | |
| | | BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000
4 edits | Re: Competitive? Sure, a little Verizon uses ROW as well whether their lines are on poles in PROW or under public streets or private properly. Verizon doesn't own every inch of dirt between the CO and every home. And here in Huntington Beach, Verizon was trenching public streets and sidewalks installing FiOS.
TWC isn't the only cable operator who line shares. Some legacy ATTBi areas (including some that are now Comcast like Seattle) also line share.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Denial If by competition they mean choosing between dial-up or themselves (any telco with monopoly), then yeah, I am in a highly competitive market.
BTW, I consider Satellite in the same category as 56kbps, but with that extra helping of ETF/TOS sauce. | |
|  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| This may be even more sinister than it appears Why are they misleading about competition? Is it only to continue monopolizing some areas?
In light of yesterday's article, I suspect the pretence of competition will become a pretext for arguments against network neutrality. If there were competition, then theoretically citizens might be able to find a provider that respected neutrality, and ISPs could cite this theoretical possibility in arguments against regulations.
When reading the writeup on yesterday's emissions from these weasels, I interpreted Tauke's remarks as suggesting a censored service option for extra-protective parents and non-technical users concerned about malware and phishing - and an unfiltered option for those who want to be free from interference from the ISP (network neutrality). But I thought he meant that these options would be from the same ISP. That way, if there's a monopoly or duopoly in an area, the neutrality option would remain available.
But in context of the original article, I now think the implication was that in Tauke's preferred world, each ISP would be free to make all its offerings censored/ filtered. Then anyone who wanted raw internet would have to look to the supposed competition. But when sufficient competition exists only in corporate propaganda, a neutral option probably would not exist in most places.
Re-read the quotation in light of this interpretation, and smell the evil.
options that would allow consumers to block data — including parents who want to control what pops up on home computers and people worried about identity theft, he added. . ."Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice." | |
| | | Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Verizon should retain Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the former Iraqi Information Minister, who is famous for his almost comical attempts at disinformation and propaganda. | |
| | |  Broadband
| |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| pro consumer yes.. let's pour gasoline on the industry and set it on fire!
Rebuild the likes of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to provide what the consumer wants! $75 triple play service with phone, video (expanded basic), and internet @ 50mbits symmetric. No catches, caps, contracts, extra taxes & fees, rentals, franchise excise, etc. This is about what a person making $12/hour can afford to pay right now.. in that new luxury of having a job. Incomes under $35k/year are working poor now.
If we can start selling $35k automobiles for $18k in bankruptcy (usa dealers//gm/chrysler) then we can do similar for your triple play services.. just making them more consumer friendly.
Unfortunately, the broadband industry in the USA just keeps trying different colors of lipstick on a swine flu diseased (read duopoly) pig. | |
| | | Extreme bias DSL Reports clearly needs writers who can see both sides of issues rather than ones who blindly slam ISPs. | |
| | | | Re: Extreme bias How true.
Good thing he's showing the side most people never think to look at.
MazeRunner
------------
Privacy is a thing of the past | |
| | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | DSL Reports clearly needs contributors to present the opposing views in the comments rather than those who just say that the story is wrong.
cw | |
|
| |
|
|
·
You are correct big business AKA Verizon does not write laws they simply pay off lawmakers through campaign contributions and other perks so that the lawmakers will write laws in their favor. In some cases corporations write the law for the lawmaker so the lawmaker does not have to waste their time thinking. In fact some rubber stamp lawmakers, claim ignorance when questioned about a law they are proposing because they were to lazy to read the law before presenting it. Unfortunately consumers do not have deep enough pockets to lobby (pay off) lawmakers. 
