republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
Verizon May Reach 80% FiOS Penetration
Now that they've offloaded pesky rural customers...
We've always wondered where precisely Verizon would stop deploying FiOS, as the company reached neighborhoods their number crunchers deemed unprofitable or poor investments. That determination is based on the carrier's ultra-secret statistical analysis -- which for obvious reasons they've never felt compelled to share since it digs into a wide variety of potentially sensitive demographic determinations.

If their sale of their Hawaii or New England networks didn't make it clear, Verizon's announcement yesterday indicates the company's answer to lower ROI markets is to sell them. Ed Gubbins at Telephony Online crunches the numbers a little further, and with the sale of 4.8 million mostly-rural access lines, Verizon now may eventually reach 80% FiOS coverage on their remaining footprint:

The Frontier transaction, expected to close next year, leaves Verizon with about 27 million homes in total. Verizon expects it FiOS network to pass 17 million homes by the end of next year. When it eventually passes 18 million homes -- Verizon's long-stated goal -- the network will cover about 67% of Verizon's total network footprint, though Verizon is calling that number about 70%.

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says there's no plans to offload any additional markets, though you wonder if additional chops won't be made down the line (upstate NY, particularly blue-collar cities like Binghamton being one possibility). At some point this year or next, Verizon will likely announce the next phase of FiOS deployment, pushing their FiOS past the 18 million home mark and closer to 80% of all homes.

Given new franchise agreements in DC, Philly and NYC, the telco clearly now has room to grow into very dense and profitable markets. The question of course becomes what happens to those 4.8 million homes offloaded to Frontier Communications? Like Fairpoint, it's not entirely clear that Frontier can handle either the new debt or the sudden growth -- and it's highly unlikely that users in those markets will see next-generation upgrades anytime soon.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com

1 edit

MAY

They MAY get FiOS....by 2014 at the earliest?

According to an earlier article, verizone is slowing deployment to stress marketing in their active areas.

And what about the other verizon markers that DONT get it, are they SOL? Does verizon plan on moving into other territory?

It will all be a moot point when 6th generation LTE comes around, and everything is wireless anyways.

Jerm

join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2

Re: MAY

Verizon:

Oh how I wish your Fios was real. But you gave us the finger all these years, and now we get the final "screw you".

'twas fun while it lasted!
moven

join:2008-02-25
Huntsville, TX
Yes, sounds like the same fight with ATT. Well we don't wont to service your area because our stats say in is not profitable...Hmmm, I don't run a major multimillion dollar corporation but, I do know that something is better than nothing. What is the old saying, Build it they will come? Well supply it and they will partake.
blackriders

join:2005-01-16
Bronx, NY
it's nice that they'll reach 80%, but they still don't have my building wired while my neighbor next door has it.

start working on apartments and you'll get more and more people.

DCIFRTHS

join:2000-02-18
Hartsdale, NY

Re: MAY

said by blackriders:

it's nice that they'll reach 80%, but they still don't have my building wired while my neighbor next door has it.

start working on apartments and you'll get more and more people.
In my area, there are a lot of apartment buildings (MDUs). I found out that a big part of the delay in getting the MDUs wired is the negotiations between Verizon and the building management.

Cosmetic issues, such as the molding that covers the wires can stall, or even prevent, FiOS deployment in MDUs.

The lawyer that represents my building (a Co-Op) revised the contract several times (that I know about) before construction started.

Bootes
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Scarsdale, NY
No. According to a recent article they're slowing deployment in California and only California.

philitup

@verizon.net
The govt regulates where a communications / entertainment company can provide service in the US to avoid an established Monopoly of one carrier. I've seen people post about cable is the only other choice and they say that verizon is monopolizing the area for home phone service, internet, etc. Considering that regulated services (home phone) are mandated by the govt and the lines that are in use by a specific company in a 'given' area, companies that provide such services aren't allowed to just 'purchase' from another provider, nor can they build lines of service in a new territory without going through regulation first. Other service providers such as Vonage for example may not be regulated since it's not using a 'dedicated' line of service that the company owns. But they also have fine print associated with their services and the kind of service / level of service guarantees it can provide. I hope this helps.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 edit
said by baineschile:

It will all be a moot point when 6th generation LTE comes around, and everything is wireless anyways.
Sorry, you violated Shannon's Law or FCC radiation rules unless you plan to have a cell tower at every traffic light, at that point Uverse is cheaper.
JosephN

join:2009-05-12

Re: MAY

A cell tower at every traffic light, AKA relay routers, is exactly how they plan to get around Shannon's. LTE is still vaporware, but other upcoming wireless standards, for example 802.11n, circumvent the Shannon's Law limitation.

Uverse is cheaper than wireless? Kind of funny since dslreports has a story Friday about AT&T testing WiFi for U-verse installs. Even AT&T realizes there comes a point where wireless is cheaper than running Uverse wires.

Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

They get filed under "Not Verizon's problem" just like everyone else who isn't a Verizon customer.

matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

Naturally the percentage would go up. If they are dropping areas that didn't have Fios, or had very little, then the percentage would just go up without them adding any more at all. This story is misleading.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

Not really misleading, the author assumes the reader is bright enough to determine that fewer non-FiOS markets means the coverage percentage goes up automatically.

matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

1 edit

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

It is misleading. The title reads "80% of Verizon's remaining customers may get fios." The 80% will already exist. The title makes it seem like 80% of those who don't have it now will get it.

Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

3 edits

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

The claim is now that more of the rural subs have been dumped, the of the remaining Verizon subs who don't yet have FiOS, 80% will eventually get it or that 80% of all subs will have FiOS available since some never-would-be-serviced rural subs were dumped.

EDIT - I'm confused.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

The 80% is after the elimination of these rural markets and upcoming plans to push deployment past 18 million homes.

Confusing, maybe. But not misleading.

Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

Cause the way I read your portion of the item is that 80% of the current VZ subs who don't have FiOS available would be getting it when the Verizon quoted portion appears that they mean 80% of the overall Verizon footprint would have FiOS available, including places that currently have it.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by Karl Bode:

The 80% is after the elimination of these rural markets and upcoming plans to push deployment past 18 million homes.

Confusing, maybe. But not misleading.
What about the FIOS passed premises that will be spun off? Are those accounted for? Verizon might actually loose FIOS coverage % if you include the FIOS passed houses being sold off (OR/WA/CA/IN).
Mark F

join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
And, devastating, just the same. Just what we Hoosiers don't need or want.
Mark F.
Mark F

join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
Verizon spent $85,000,000 laying fiber, etc so they could offer FIOS internet and TV to Fort Wayne. They gave us more channels than we could have ever dreamed of, many features we never had before and super-fast internet.

Now, we may lose all that because they are selling us out to a company that doesn't know how to serve us? Pesky, are we? We'll show them just how pesky we can be!
Mark F.

Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

What do you think the new company will do, abandon the hardware and fiber infrastructure? Of course not. They will continue operating it as they spent a pretty penny to buy it.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

said by Bit:

What do you think the new company will do, abandon the hardware and fiber infrastructure? Of course not. They will continue operating it as they spent a pretty penny to buy it.
What about the Americast HFC plant that was abandoned? I can show you an entire county of it here in CT that has Americast Cable plant on its poles. Sometimes the fiber from the fiber nodes is being plugged into VRADs now.

Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

Re: But what happens to rural customers offloaded to others

They're currently service FiOS sub with no indication that they'll stop.

pushcomestoshove

@optonline.net

rural gets screwed EVERY TIME

in these areas, i can guarantee verizon doesn't care if a muni or someone else decided to invest in a fttp network in these so-called unprofitable areas.. keep in mind once they jettison them.. there should be a lifetime ban on verizon reaquiring them-- except, unless by community referendum (vote). my reasoning.. these companies will fail-- verizon gets enriched to the tune of billion$, then buys them back on the cheap after bankruptcy-- then it suddenly becomes profitable when your up 2-3 billion... verizon can suddenly wire the rural areas at 1/10th the cost it would had the debt not gotten offloaded-- too bad they can't do that with the vodafone debt.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: rural gets screwed EVERY TIME

What else is new?
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
The choices we make......
wev567

join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA
said by pushcomestoshove :

verizon gets enriched to the tune of billion$, then buys them back on the cheap after bankruptcy--
Is there anything except conjecture that they plan to do this? Carlyle Group went bankrupt, Fairpoint is almost there, yet there's no sign VZ is interested in buying them back.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: rural gets screwed EVERY TIME

said by wev567:

said by pushcomestoshove :

verizon gets enriched to the tune of billion$, then buys them back on the cheap after bankruptcy--
Is there anything except conjecture that they plan to do this? Carlyle Group went bankrupt, Fairpoint is almost there, yet there's no sign VZ is interested in buying them back.
You all are assuming the C* execs at AT&T and Verizon have some kind of sexual fetish about reassembling Ma Bell that reminds me of fascism.

THEY DONT!!!

If it looks like they are reassembling Ma Bell, its coincidental to dividends and profit. Remember Ma Bell was required to cross subsidize its rural universal service phone service with urban phone bills. The USF was created to continue that practice. Ma Bell was govt-corporate socialism. Verizon and AT&T would rather pocket the USF $ than hand it out to bloated ISDN or bust rural phone companies that get to charge "corporate costs" to the USF. And VZ and ATT definitely don't want to inherit the universal service/radio telephone requirements that Ma Bell had, and the business model definitions and the "corporate rights abusing" "rate of return" price caps, which define the amount of profit you can extract out of any product you sell, capping your dividends.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

2 edits

fu to Verizon

Honestly..this huge of a sale makes me sick, its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off.

Yet Comcast hasn't sold its subscribers off like Verizon just did, Verizon just unloaded HALF OF THEIR USERBASE.

Verizon= Cherrypicker, and I dare you to say they don't, when faced with this evidence.

O and if these areas were not profitable, then why the HELL did you install FiOS at some of the locations?

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA

1 edit

Re: fu to Verizon

Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. Why should Verizon be lambasted for not wanting to lose money? If anyone should be investigated and attacked it should be the buyer, of which few of us think will actually be able to pull this off.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: fu to Verizon

said by jmn1207:

Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business. Why should Verizon be lambasted for not wanting to lose money? If anyone should be investigated and attacked it should be the buyer, of which few of us think will actually be able to pull this off.
There is a difference between McDonalds and Walmart Cherrypicking (ie: Deciding where to build stores) and what Verizon does (deciding what class of service to provide in their exclusive/monopoly areas). Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area) while McDonalds and Walmart do not have the right to prevent Burger King or K-Mart from building stores.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA

Re: fu to Verizon

Why does Verizon have an exclusive right to sell service in a particular area? How was Verizon able to make this happen all by themselves? Why do they deserve all the criticism?

Parogadi
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI

Re: fu to Verizon

You do realize that they buy exclusive contracts with stae and city govenments and that the FCC has granted them the ability to not share any of the fiber they lay with any other company, which is why they rip out the normal phone line when you get fios, because they have to share the copper twisted pair with other companies.

By doing all of this they are setting themselves up as an only option, once you have them, it becomes an expensive pain in the ass to get rid of them.

It's allot like GM did to the rail systems in the US
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo···tructure
As they paid to get roads built they also bought out the light rail companies and dug up their tracks, essentially forcing the people that lived in the area to buy a car as there was no alternative anymore.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA

Re: fu to Verizon

said by Parogadi:

You do realize that they buy exclusive contracts with stae and city govenments and that the FCC has granted them the ability to not share any of the fiber they lay with any other company, which is why they rip out the normal phone line when you get fios, because they have to share the copper twisted pair with other companies.

By doing all of this they are setting themselves up as an only option, once you have them, it becomes an expensive pain in the ass to get rid of them.

It's allot like GM did to the rail systems in the US
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo···tructure
As they paid to get roads built they also bought out the light rail companies and dug up their tracks, essentially forcing the people that lived in the area to buy a car as there was no alternative anymore.
I clearly remember when AT&T was forced to split. The point is that any exclusivity that Verizon "bought" had to have a seller. Blame your politicians looking for quick cash to make voters happy. Blame the president of your home owner's association. Blame Frontier for spending so much money on Verizon's wasteland. This was not a one-sided affair, and nobody should blame Verizon for "cherrypicking", as if they are doing something unscrupulous.

The GM analogy is a bit off the mark. If Verizon were allowed to buy their competition and force everyone to use DSL, then it would make more sense. But your idea is not lost to me, and I see the angle you are driving at (like the pun?), but Verizon should not feel compelled to do something financially silly just to make a few customers happy at the sake of potentially making many angry.

I don't think we should be bailing out banks or any other failing industry, and I don't want to have to save Verizon or AT&T in the future because they tanked trying to keep their heads above water. Let them run their business. They SOLD part of what they owned, it's not like they just abandoned ship. Somebody, obviously, thought this was a good deal, or no one would have bought this at the asking price.

Parogadi
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI

Re: fu to Verizon

they got their exclusivity on fios that they lay from the FCC, we don't get to vote on the FCC.

Many parts of the country are paying the price for the lack of public transport in the same way that the people that have fios will have to find a way to have their phone lines reinstalled, these days the phone companies only cover the cost up to the little gray box on the side of the house that connects to the pole, anything from the box inward is on your dime.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1

Re: fu to Verizon

said by Parogadi:

they got their exclusivity on fios that they lay from the FCC, we don't get to vote on the FCC.

Many parts of the country are paying the price for the lack of public transport in the same way that the people that have fios will have to find a way to have their phone lines reinstalled, these days the phone companies only cover the cost up to the little gray box on the side of the house that connects to the pole, anything from the box inward is on your dime.
The reason Verizon doesn't have to share their fiber is because THEY'RE paying for it... all of it. That wasn't the case with copper - the fact that the government paid for a good chunk of the layout of copper became one of the justifications for the provision in the 1996 Telecom Act forcing phone companies to share their networks.

As for Verizon having monopoly control in areas - what are you talking about? They're the company rolling into areas offering alternatives for TV service that didn't exist in those areas before.

I don't get it - if they try to be all things to all people, they get accused of snubbing out competition, and there's gnashing of teeth of Ma Bell coming back together. If they sell off parts of their system, divesting part of their service, then that's proof of them acting like a monopoly too? Someone please explain that to me.

While what they're doing sucks to people in those FiOS markets affected, it's business. If it happened to me, I'd be disappointed, sure, but to make the claim that this is an example of Verizon acting like a corporate bully just doesn't make any sense.

Parogadi
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI

Re: fu to Verizon

Tell that to the people in Pennsylvania that paid them to roll it out, and they never did. »/nsearch?cat=n···sylvania
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
said by RARPSL:

Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area)
That's a pretty inaccurate statement, but I'd be more than willing to be proven wrong. Can you provide any evidence that Verizon has exclusive access to voice or data service in their operating areas?

A competitive company may decide they can't make money competing with Verizon, but there's nothing that prevents them from trying.

MrMaster
jetsetter
Premium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Virgin Mobile Br..

Re: fu to Verizon

Verizon is an offshoot of the AT&T breakup back in the day..obviously before each of your time cause of these weird questions.

Can you even fathom how much it would cost to run copper to an entire city, even if it is as small as 10,000 people? This is to every house and every community.

Verizon didn't have to pay for it. It was given to them by the US taxpayer years and years ago.

Verizon is cherry picking because of their monopoly and utility status. It is different than a Walmart.
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

Re: fu to Verizon

said by MrMaster:

Verizon is an offshoot of the AT&T breakup back in the day..obviously before each of your time cause of these weird questions.
Sorry - I was touring Bell System Central Offices when Charley Brown was running Illinois Bell, and that's no joke. A particularly popular bumper sticker on craft vehicles was "Charley Brown is my boss - I work for peanuts."

said by MrMaster:

Can you even fathom how much it would cost to run copper to an entire city, even if it is as small as 10,000 people? This is to every house and every community.
Yes, I can. It varies from $1500 to $3000 per home, depending on the type of connection (fiber or coax).

said by MrMaster:

Verizon didn't have to pay for it. It was given to them by the US taxpayer years and years ago.


No, it wasn't. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Just because a company installed wire in the ground under regulatory supervision does not mean the taxpayers paid for it.

What happened was that the phone company used it's own money to install the infrastructure. The regulators limited the profit that the company could make on that investment and controlled how much the subscribers could be charged each month to pay the company back.

said by MrMaster:

Verizon is cherry picking because of their monopoly and utility status. It is different than a Walmart.
Verizon is choosing where it wishes to do business and that is no different than any other company.

And no one has provided any proof to the assertion that Verizon was granted an exclusive franchise in any service area.

N3OGH
Certified GLG-20
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
POTS is no longer the "monopoly" it used to be. There is plenty of competition out there now.

Wireless, Cable providers, VoIP. All offer alternatives to "the phone company". DSLR runs regular stories about how the land line customer base is shrinking.

This discussion has NOTHING to do with Verizon being a monopoly, or phone service, or anything other than a temper tantrum.

"Oh, I enjoy all the good things that come from living in a rural part of the country, but I expect the big bad phone company to run that big fat fiber optic pipe out to my house in the middle of east jibip and lose money in the process".

Folks can't have it both ways. I would LOVE to live in a rural part of the country. I despise that the Toll Brothers decided to surround my wonderful middle of nowhere home with McMansions. McMansions filled with rich elitist assholes who look down on me because I'm a humble civil servant living off 44K a year driving a 7 year old car.

But, I do have multiple choices in broadband providers. It's a trade off, like everything else in life.

Not you personally, of course. I'm sure in Houston you have choices yourself. But it is a trade off.

Assholes or Bandwidth. Whatcha want? With one, comes the other....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
said by RARPSL:

There is a difference between McDonalds and Walmart Cherrypicking (ie: Deciding where to build stores) and what Verizon does (deciding what class of service to provide in their exclusive/monopoly areas).
Yes there is a difference in the types of businesses. However when Verizon entered or acquired many of the divested markets, they were only offering telephone service. The internet hadn't been invented let alone FiOS TV. Overall, they’ve maintained those networks as they are suppose to, to provide telephone service.

New types of services came about and Verizon had to make the choice whether or not to expand. Just as McDs and Walmart had the choice to build where they wanted to, they also have the ability to decide to sell their location/property and let someone else take over. Similarly, Verizon has done the same. Verizon has determined that a location is no longer profitable investment for what they want. That doesn’t necessarily mean those areas were unprofitable, but rather they felt that their money could be better invested elsewhere. They aren’t closing up shop and leaving everyone hanging. They realized that they have assets that someone else wanted and decided to sell them…the same way that Walmart and McDonalds buy and sell their locations.

Verizon has the exclusive right to service the area (and prevents others from attempting to provide service in their area) while McDonalds and Walmart do not have the right to prevent Burger King or K-Mart from building stores.
Verizon didn’t unilaterally declare that they had an exclusive monopoly on an area. It was granted to them by the local franchise authority or utility commission. If those franchise agreements included some type of requirements that Verizon must build out the networks in a particular way, I would expect that you’ll hear some legal wrangling in the coming months. But if there wasn’t, or Frontier just continues under the same or similar franchise agreements, I don’t you’ll see authorities object to the sale on the grounds that a monopoly was once granted.
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
said by jmn1207:

Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business.
The local phone companies such as Verizon are still very dominant in their service territories. They were legal government-sanctioned monopolies for 100 years and in many cases still are functional monopolies. That's the difference compared to McDonalds or Walmart.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1

Re: fu to Verizon

said by PX Eliezer:

said by jmn1207:

Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart. It makes sense to research and identify locations that will provide the most profit for your business.
The local phone companies such as Verizon are still very dominant in their service territories. They were legal government-sanctioned monopolies for 100 years and in many cases still are functional monopolies. That's the difference compared to McDonalds or Walmart.
So are you telling me that there are NO alternatives to the phone company these days? Really? Why is Verizon (and AT&T) getting into the video business? Could it be that they're having their clocks cleaned on the voice front by companies like Comcast? Why yes, that's exactly one of the reasons. Even though Verizon is the phone company in my market, to believe I don't have alternatives is just silly. I have more today than ever before. I can opt to go with a different phone carrier, or I could go VoIP (Comcast, Vonage), or I could go all cellular, or hell, I could go with Magic Jack (not that I would). The notion that my choices are MORE limited than before is just wrong. Does everyone have those same choices? Nope - but just because additional choices aren't expanding at an equal rate across the country doesn't mean that competition hasn't increased over the last several years. It most definitely has.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by jmn1207:

Every successful business "cherrypicks", even McDonalds and Walmart.
85% of US McDonalds area franchised, or 15% of US McDonalds are owned by corporate. Thats why railroad stop towns in the middle of nowhere midwest/west USA have them. Think of McDonalds like Sprint PCS used to do with their "affiliates" and "partners", Sprint PCS was franchise brand except for truly urban areas which were owned by corporate. If you were in an Affiliate or Partner, the franchisee got to set the prices and the packages you got. Great free market stuff (or not, Sprint franchises always charged more than Sprint corporate). Ever since the Nextel Merger, Sprint has been forced to buy the Affiliates and Partners that use the Sprint name because Nextel, which is run by Sprint Corporate would be competing against the Sprint franchises violating the franchise agreement Sprint corporate signed.

Walmart is a better analogy to an Verizon and ATT.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA

Re: fu to Verizon

I just named a familiar business off the top of my head, it didn't matter for my purposes. Demographics are used to decide where to place a business, whether it's a burger joint or a retail store. If a business has several locations that are not profitable, and likely will not be in the foreseeable future, they often close them down.

Verizon should be able to do the same thing, in my opinion. I guess we will find out, soon, if they are going to be allowed to sell to Frontier.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS

Re: fu to Verizon

said by ztmike:

Honestly..this huge of a sale makes me sick, its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off.
Yeah, and? How is this differently then most other companies that want to maximize profit? Frontier approached Verizon, nto the other way around. If you owned a dilapidated old home that you weren't real keen on maintaining forever, and someone came and offered you a premium for it, are you telling me that you wouldn't take it?

Yet Comcast hasn't sold its subscribers off like Verizon just did, Verizon just unloaded HALF OF THEIR USERBASE.
They didn't sell half their userbase. They sold about 15% of their user base that covers 47% of their territory. In other words, the least dense part of their territory.

Verizon= Cherrypicker, and I dare you to say they don't, when faced with this evidence.
Would you rather Verizon just keep a hold of those customers and never do anythign with them?

O and if these areas were not profitable, then why the HELL did you install FiOS at some of the locations?
They selectively installed them in I believe 3 markets in the sold off territory. When they started to do installs in those markets several years ago, Frontier hadn't approached them. They weren't actively seeking a buyer for those markets but the opportunity presented itself.

They offloaded 1/2 their territory and it just happened to have those 3 FiOS markets where, relatively speaking, wasn't too many customers. They couldn't sell off all 14 states except those 3 markets. So those 3 markets in some regards were just "causalities" of the divestiture. If they had a reasonable choice, they might have wanted to keep them, but the 3 markets were also pretty remote to most other currently planned FiOS installs so getting rid of them was still advantageous.
wev567

join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA
said by ztmike:

...its like Verizon telling me, well see-ya you're not profitable so we'll be selling you off.
And they are letting someone else serve you. Would you rather suffer with someone who doesn't want to serve you, or let another company have a chance to provide the upgrades you want?
Mark F

join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
Verizon built their fiber optic system here and gave us more channels than anyone else offered, the best picture quality, better equipment and more features, and the fastest internet. It almost seemed too good to be true.

And, maybe it was. They offered us the moon and the stars and now they're siphoning the fuel from our rocket. It seems they will abandon us so they can concentrate on serving the more populated areas of the northeast, and parts of Florida, Texas and California.

They are still signing up FIOS TV and internet customers around here as though nothing will change after Frontier takes over. Which may not be the case. If Frontier finds that they've bit off more than they can chew and are in over their heads, they just might abandon us, too.
Mark F.
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Verizon Won't Mess With Upstate NY

Verizon will leave upstate New York service areas alone. Already some of the most rural sections of the state are served by independent telcos (Frontier being a major one), plus Verizon made it clear where it doesn't make sense to deploy a traditional FTTH network, they can engineer a hybrid approach with a mix of fiber, coax, or copper. Verizon already offers DSL in most of their smaller markets in NY.

When you look at where they did dump smaller towns overboard, those weren't originally Verizon service areas all along, and many were simply too challenging and not worth the effort to invest in, with enormous swaths of ultra low populations spread over vast distances.

New York, even upstate, isn't super rural in the western half, and the upper middle is sprinkled with independent players anyway.

As I've written on stopthecap, Verizon dumping rural customers overboard to Frontier assures we're well on the way to having 21st century vs. 20th century broadband in this country. The former in urban areas, the latter in suburban and rural. Frontier will not dig deep to invest in fiber even in Rochester (it would make their financials look bad), so they certainly aren't going to do it in upper Washington, West Virginia, or farm country Indiana.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech

2 edits

Re: Verizon Won't Mess With Upstate NY

They've considered offloading NY State in the past, and given the tax cuts and debt relief they got when they booted New England to Fairpoint, I wouldn't rule anything out.
New York, even upstate, isn't super rural in the western half, and the upper middle is sprinkled with independent players anyway.
Well, the North-Western Buffalo/Rochester half. It's pretty damn rural from Allegheny eastward, and cities like Binghamton certainly aren't going to be on their priority list. But yeah, I bet cities like Bingo could be the lucky recipient of AT&T style FTTN half-assery.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
and like i've said, your blog makes you right how? The only thing you say its what you think and feel.

As far as Frontier or even FairPoint assures us to have a 21st century to a 20th century broadband is full of shit. Some of the areas if not most will never see anything except DSL if they have that available. There is only so much you can do with DSL to start off with and it doesn't upgrade very easily. Especially since its limited on distance (but you should know that since you write a blog).

These areas won't see anything but ADSL maybe ADSL2+ but I doubt that even. VZ is just cherry picking and more areas will go.

Buddha_goo

@myvzw.com
I live in upstate NY. What I consider to truly be upstate (as in straight north of the southern part of the state. Anything off axis north and south to me is Western NY.

Anyway, I live in an area Verizon has chosen to neglect. Not even slow DSL! Most Verizon employees seem to be arrogant, overworked, and could not give a rat's ass. I was practically assaulted by an older burned out field tech who was on overtime. After I calmed him down he spilled the beans about how VZ really feels about "upstate NY". They REALLY don't care. They have taught me to HATE them as they squeeze every possible penny out of me for nothing other than basic phone service. Charter is my local cable co and they offer only basic cable to their 25,000 customers because FairPoint holds territorial access rights to cable deployment and FP holds Charter over a barrel.

This is all significant because in a situation like mine (and I know I'm far from unique) we have a duopoly in collusion as far as even 20th C deployment. And I ain't even in the boonies!

A situation like this forces rural people into a couple hundred extra dollars a month for inferior connectivity. According to a recent BBC report 52% of NYS residents have NO access to the net.

In my opinion VZ should not get a penny of stimulus aid to develop anything other than ensuring that their rural holdings are serviced first.

I've never disliked any service provider as much VZ.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Verizon Won't Mess With Upstate NY

said by Buddha_goo :

Charter is my local cable co and they offer only basic cable to their 25,000 customers because FairPoint holds territorial access rights to cable deployment and FP holds Charter over a barrel.
LOL

How? Video franchises are municipality based in NY state, telco franchises are state based.
FHBroadband8

join:2009-04-15

NYC to cancel FIOS

I wouldn't be surprised if all rollout to NYC gets eliminated in the first place.

fde

@verizon.net

Re: NYC to cancel FIOS

NYC will never cancel Fios. They are going to make to much money in franchise fees and can use Fios to force Time Warner and Cablevision to pay more per subscriber when they renegotiate.
Oregonian2

join:2008-07-16
Beaverton, OR

"Rural"

Verizon's dumping FiOS areas that include "rural" areas like Metro Seattle (home of Microsoft) and Metro Portland (home of Intel's highest-employee-count facilities in Hillsboro).

At least I've FiOS installed, hopefully Frontier won't pull it out and replace it with DSL, reactivating the currently deactivated copper.

elbm

join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD

Nothing different here

They are doing the same as every other industry does-- moving their operations/manufacturing to a place where it is cheaper to build what they sell. Textiles did it, auto did/is doing it, electronics did it.... VZ is no longer a fully regulated utility, they are for profit corporation that primarily answers to share holders. We had unbiased universal service here but that was broken apart in 1984. Had ATT/Bell Systems been kept together you would most likely be paying more but there would be more uniform coverage of residential data services.

See 6 replies to this post

XBL2009
------

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL

Nothing like good FiOS penetration

Makes everyone squeal.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

Universal Service Fund

Perhaps Fairpoint should be getting all the USF dollars that Verizon used to get for that area.

perki

join:2008-12-01
Santa Maria, CA

Like The Read This And Care

BRING IT TO SANTA MARIA CA!!!!! COMMON GUYS COMCAST IS GREAT BUT I WANT FUTURE
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Verizon loosing FIOS customers

So with 27 million homes now, instead of 33 million before (2006 number »www.tvover.net/2006/09/27/Verizo···ars.aspx ), FIOS coverage 1st quarter, 10.4 million passed ( »finance.yahoo.com/news/Verizon-C···tml?.v=1 ).

The math says Verizon just jumped from %40 FIOS (13.2/33 million) coverage to %48 FIOS (13.2/27) coverage, but that doesn't include the following, how many FIOS passed houses will Verizon LOOSE in this deal?

ViviTheMage
vivi
Premium
join:2002-10-28
Minneapolis, MN

m pls

come to Minneapolis!!

golfball11

@ipfw.edu

Please

Verizon will have 80 percent pentration by dropping a whole bunch of customers. If you ask me thats not penetration thats called selective reduction.

Sunday, 12-Feb 00:03:52 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.