Verizon Promises Mass. More DSL, FiOS Broadband black holes persist in the State Tipped by Cabal 
Though the company just received the regulatory approval it needs to sell its DSL lines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Verizon apparently wants to keep the more profitable (and less rural) Massachusetts. The telco has announcing they'll be investing $200 million in the State to extend their DSL and FiOS networks to an additional 23 communities. At first glance it doesn't appear that Shutesbury and Leverett (on second glance Leverett is) are on the list; they're two rural Massachusetts towns whose unsuccessful fight to get DSL or cable we've been tracking for years. Verizon's effort will try to get some level of DSL connectivity to two-thirds of the 32 towns that the state has said lack access to broadband. The problem we've seen over the years is that after these promises are made, nobody really gets out into the field to see if they're kept, and companies are very rarely held accountable if they aren't. The State recently unveiled a $25 million effort to both map and bring service to the State's broadband black holes, which brought attention to Verizon's deployment shortcomings.
|
 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| the real reason this is one of the real reasons the incumbents have for resisting dissemination of deployment information.
if you don't know where they've deployed service, it's harder to tell if they are redlining or not meeting the deployment terms of agreements.
the other unstated reason, of course, is so the govt and public can't see how widespread broadband "black holes" are and how the big incumbents don't compete against each other in most areas. | |
|  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: the real reason said by nasadude:this is one of the real reasons the incumbents have for resisting dissemination of deployment information. How are they resisting? At least in Verizon's case they let you enter your address into their website and you can check if you can get DSL or FIOS at a particular location.
»www22.verizon.com/content/consum···ress.htm
»www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/ch···ntry.asp
You can also call Comcast and ask if they provide broadband (or other services) to a particular address. This was particularly handy when I was house-hunting 2 year ago.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that other incumbent providers have means of contacting them to verify availability of service at a given location. This pretty much proves that incumbents have this information and are willing to share it with people.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: the real reason said by pnh102:.... This pretty much proves that incumbents have this information and are willing to share it with people. they are only willing to share with people that call and ask if service is available at a specific location.
so I guess, yeah, if someone wants to create a comcast service map, they can call comcast and ask for every address in an area. That's a lotta dam calls.
the point I'm making is they WON'T allow the release of information to the extent that say a municipal planner could see where service is available and where it isn't, so they could like, plan. the incumbents have also lobbied against bills requiring them to provide this information.
the stated reason that this is "proprietary" and business confidential information is a bunch of crap and a smokescreen.
the sole reason for resisting the release of this information is to hide the true picture of broadband deployment (or non-deployment) in the U.S. | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: the real reason said by nasadude:so I guess, yeah, if someone wants to create a comcast service map, they can call comcast and ask for every address in an area. That's a lotta dam calls. So what if it is? If someone is that interested, let them expend the effort to make it happen. Since just about everyone else can find out if a particular location is serviceable, I don't see any major problem with the current setup.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: the real reason said by pnh102:.. I don't see any major problem with the current setup. Apparently, you don't see any major problem with the lack of competition of our current setup either.
The whole idea behind getting deployment information is to enable cities, counties, states to evaluate broadband deployment in their area and come up with a plan to ensure coverage if it is inadequate (which it is in many places).
of course, the nation doesn't have a broadband plan and won't anytime soon, but that doesn't mean states and counties should stick their head up their @ss like the federal govt and leave everything up to the incumbents. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: the real reason said by nasadude:Apparently, you don't see any major problem with the lack of competition of our current setup either. Not really no. I just verified that broadband was available where I was going to live and moved accordingly.
said by nasadude:The whole idea behind getting deployment information ... We have proven irrefutably that this information is already available. Anyone who wants it can get it. Just because people are too lazy to get this information doesn't mean we need an act of Congress to force these companies to give us nice warm fuzzy copies of what is otherwise already available.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: the real reason well, no surprise about your lack of concern regarding broadband competition.
although to some degree I can agree with your position, I disagree with your premise that this information is "irrefutably" available via the manner in which we are discussing; that is, I suspect calling comcast about every address in a municipality would not yield the most accurate picture. Sometimes one does not find out if service is really available until an actual order is placed; we all know CSRs often don't have the best or latest information.
why should a local government have to do this? Why won't comcast or whomever, provide this information, especially if whoever is requesting it provides payment for the trouble?
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!
and what they have to hide is the sorry state of broadband coverage and lack of competition in the U.S. The free market, deregulatory regime we currently have IS A FAILURE. From 1st to 15th in less than 10 years - doesn't sound like a success story to me.
If the true picture of broadband in the U.S. were shown, the FCC and industry would be unable to claim "vigorous competition" without getting laughed at. | |
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: the real reason said by nasadude:well, no surprise about your lack of concern regarding broadband competition. Well this problem doesn't concern me in the least. If I was stupid enough to not verify broadband availability before I moved, and then found I could not get broadband, that would be my fault, not some incumbent's fault.
said by nasadude:I disagree with your premise that this information is "irrefutably" available via the manner in which we are discussing; You can disagree but you are still incorrect. The information is freely available.
said by nasadude:... that is, I suspect calling comcast about every address in a municipality would not yield the most accurate picture. And a government mandate for them to make a shiny, documented picture would? I'll agree that no system is perfect, but for most people, it works fine as it is now.
said by nasadude:Sometimes one does not find out if service is really available until an actual order is placed; we all know CSRs often don't have the best or latest information. What is to stop an incumbent from providing inaccurate information to the government?
said by nasadude:why should a local government have to do this? Why won't comcast or whomever, provide this information, especially if whoever is requesting it provides payment for the trouble? I would be irate if my local government was wasting our money trying to get specifics of broadband installations from any company. We have more important things to spend tax money on... and one of those things is not on behalf of stupid people who are too lazy to verify broadband availability on their own.
said by nasadude:THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE! So if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about? Where have we heard this argument before? 
said by nasadude:and what they have to hide is the sorry state of broadband coverage and lack of competition in the U.S. Well the majority of people probably think that broadband is good enough. If it wasn't, you'd see more improvements. But if customers are not willing to pay premium prices for premium service, that's more of a knock on them and not the providers.
said by nasadude:The free market, deregulatory regime we currently have IS A FAILURE. From 1st to 15th in less than 10 years - doesn't sound like a success story to me. Most populated parts of the USA have access to good broadband speeds at zero cost to the taxpayer. How is that bad?
said by nasadude:If the true picture of broadband in the U.S. were shown, the FCC and industry would be unable to claim "vigorous competition" without getting laughed at. But they are getting laughed at right now...
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: the real reason I know you like to have the last word, so here is one more thing to respond to, I'm done.
I am positive you would not get accurate information by just calling comcast for every address in a location and asking if they have service. Maybe I will try it sometime and see if I can get a comcast rep to stay on the line thru 100,000 address requests. It's simply insane to suggest the information be obtained this way. You disagree, fine. we agree to disagree.
I would like to see the U.S. have better broadband, because I would like higher speeds at lower prices like most of the developed world has. I also think it's imperative to the economic well being and advancement of the U.S. to have broadband equivalent to the world's best - that's where we used to be and that's where I would like us to be again. It's clear from your statements this is of no concern whatsoever to you as long as you have yours.
It's obvious that your income is high enough that you don't care about price and you also aren't particularly concerned about speed. Fair enough. You're not obligated to look any further than your own concerns or needs.
One last thing: how do you know most populated parts of the USA have access to good (as in 3Mbps or better, none of this 200k crap) broadband speeds? The data the FCC reports has no relation to reality and the incumbents won't provide it - did you call and inquire for each of tens of millions of addresses? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: the real reason said by nasadude:I know you like to have the last word, so here is one more thing to respond to, I'm done. I am positive you would not get accurate information by just calling comcast for every address in a location and asking if they have service. Maybe I will try it sometime and see if I can get a comcast rep to stay on the line through 100,000 address requests. It's simply insane to suggest the information be obtained this way. You disagree, fine. we agree to disagree. I would like to see the U.S. have better broadband, because I would like higher speeds at lower prices like most of the developed world has. I also think it's imperative to the economic well being and advancement of the U.S. to have broadband equivalent to the world's best - that's where we used to be and that's where I would like us to be again. It's clear from your statements this is of no concern whatsoever to you as long as you have yours. It's obvious that your income is high enough that you don't care about price and you also aren't particularly concerned about speed. Fair enough. You're not obligated to look any further than your own concerns or needs. One last thing: how do you know most populated parts of the USA have access to good (as in 3Mbps or better, none of this 200k crap) broadband speeds? The data the FCC reports has no relation to reality and the incumbents won't provide it - did you call and inquire for each of tens of millions of addresses? Good point nasadude, If one were to ask a telephone company If a particular address is within range of DSL service, All they will say frequently is "We don't know as We need a phone number to figure that out with", So with DSL It's potluck, your neighbor may have DSL, But that will never guarantee that Your address will ever have It. And Fios, Well It should be easy to determine once It's in an area as It covers an area like Cable does You'd think, Deregulation to Cable and the Telecoms is a good thing while It's a bad thing to the US consumer, As It's a Good thing to them as then they can do whatever the CEO and Board of Directors wants to do. Verizon would sell off the Rural area I live in, But they can't as this area links Verizon on the west Coast to Texas and parts of Verizon beyond Texas, So we're safe(No Fairpoint West here), Of course that doesn't mean they'll ever install Fios out here as the only thing they've done lately is to increase DSL speeds to their customers that are within 9000' of the CO and Yes I'm getting 6M speeds on the download, No change on the upload speed though as It's stuck at 768K just like It was at 3M speeds, So It's not quite as good as Fios in that respect. We do have TWC nearby of course, But I'd pass on their email as I've had problems with people receiving emails sent from the rr.com domain as some block the rr.com domain due to spam. I'd also pass on their phone as I like Verizons phone service better and for TV, I just happen to like Dish Network better, But that's the competition around here and My personal preference too, Some are good at one thing and others aren't, Cable may be good with TV and internet(If internet doesn't interfere with Your TV that is), But I don't like Cable TVs constant raising of the bar on prices.
--
(26.04GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: the real reason said by zoom314:If one were to ask a telephone company If a particular address is within range of DSL service, All they will say frequently is "We don't know as We need a phone number to figure that out with", So with DSL It's potluck, your neighbor may have DSL, But that will never guarantee that Your address will ever have It. Completely and totally wrong.
I will post the links here once more:
FIOS lookup by address: »www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/ch···ntry.asp
Verizon DSL lookup by address: »www22.verizon.com/content/consum···ress.htm
AT&T DSL lookup by address:
»swot.sbc.com/swot/canIOrderOnlin···ocessDSL
QWest DSL lookup by address:
»www.qwest.com/residential/intern···ual.html
It appears the assertion I made in my original post is correct. The information is there if you want it.
Personally, I feel my time is too valuable to spend on entering every possible address into these websites. However, for those of you who feel that we must absolutely have such information, have at it.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by nasadude:so I guess, yeah, if someone wants to create a comcast service map, they can call comcast and ask for every address in an area. That's a lotta dam calls. And you will quickly be served with a restraining order. | |
|
| |  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | And in my case I'm serviceable when the VZ website says I'm not.
Verizon and other providers are always bragging in annual reports about how many homes they're passing and how many customers they service. | |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | They promised PA stuff too and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't.
Verizon promises don't mean sh!t. | |
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: They promised PA stuff too said by Dogfather:and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't. Verizon promises don't mean sh!t. And the telelie from Teletruth lives on.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | Re: They promised PA stuff too What in PA isn't covered by DSL now? I think 95% of the state was now with a minimum of 1.5Mbit in the way out there areas... and 3.0Mbit in the average towns and now 7.1Mbit in areas that have 30k+ people and FIOS in the largest areas... | |
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | I know that truth is Kryptonite to industry shills but ignoring reality just serves to embarrass yourself. Of course you never substantiate your claims that Teletruth is lying, meanwhile Teletruth substantiates all of the claims they make.
»Picture Perfect Deal
The telco promised 45Mb service by specific deadlines and in exchange got deregulation worth hundreds of millions.
Teletruth just consolodates Pennsylvania PUC documents and State Senate testimony of well known industry experts.
Unless you want to refute the claims of the Pennsylvania PUC and Teletruth consolidation of facts into a simple summary, you can knock off the endless diversions and conjecture.
In the meantime I'll take the word of industry expert Dr. Lee Selywn »www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf over a telco shill.
If you care to substantiate your claims against teletruth, I've posted a link to Dr. Selywn's testimony. Feel free to tell us your credentials and what about Selywns testimony is factually incorrect. | |
| | | | | said by Linklist:And the telelie from Teletruth lives on. It is a shame that the only way you can counter his arguments and the evidence he presented is by calling it a lie without even making an attempt to back that assertion up with your own evidence. Just goes to show how much water your argument hold. | |
| | | | |
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Dogfather:and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't. Actually, specialized tax breaks for specific businesses are SOP for Pennsylvania, at least when we lived there a couple of years ago. Major businesses were routinely granted breaks from paying corporate income and/or local property tax (this was directed primarily at retailers).
Verizon wasn't getting anything that any other business, if it lobbied the state hard enough, wouldn't otherwise get.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Re: They promised PA stuff too Uh, no. Chapter 30 was specific to BA and laid down in no uncertain terms what BA was supposed to do in exchange for the goodies they were to get (and no one else gets). It was specifically deregulation of BA's business that netted them hundreds of millions and Dr. Lee Selywn went into detail during his testimony exactly what happened, and how BA benefitted from Chapter 30 and how BA failed to deliver on any of the promises they made.
Registration may be required (but I just hit submit without entering any info).
»www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: They promised PA stuff too Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. | |
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: They promised PA stuff too Again, just because the gov't is bought and paid for by big business doesn't mean anything. Telcos got immunity for wiretapping too, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'll ask you again, what in industry expert Dr. Selywn's testimony is factually incorrect. It's Dr. Selywn's testimony along with other PUC hearing docs, and BA's own annual reports and press releases that Teletruth is relying on in their claims against the thieves at Verizon.
»www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf
So far you have yet to support your claims. Teletruth supported theirs. | |
| | | | | | | said by Linklist:Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. Actually, that proves nothing. Filing a complaint with those agencies and having something done is almost never based on merit, but usually based on the number of complaints or the amount of money the get from you (ie - license holding broadcasters who pay small fortunes for spectrum).
For example, the "wardrobe malfunction" incident at the Superbowl only received the massive amount of attention it did from the government because of the flood of complains that it received. I've seen things that would offend the people who reported that incident even more on late night TV, but nothing is ever done because the complaint volume is so low. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: They promised PA stuff too said by factchecker :
...
For example, the "wardrobe malfunction" incident at the Superbowl only received the massive amount of attention it did from the government because of the flood of complains that it received....
just a quick correction: the FCC acted in this case because
1) Martin (or was it Powell? no matter same difference) saw the opportunity to push his indecency agenda
2) most of the complaints were form letters generated by some religious right organization, so there were actually not that many unique complaints, but this gave Martin the backing to pursue 1) | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Linklist:Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. hahahahahahahaha!
you funny TK!
his complaints, if acted upon, would have benefited consumers. Everyone knows the current govt doesn't give a sh1t about the public. They're not going to do anything to stop the telco campaign contribution gravy train. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | I'm not arguing that Bell Atlantic received tax breaks or not.
My comment was directed at your claim that other industries do not receive such breaks. I am simply stating that vendor-directed tax breaks are standard operating policy for Pennsylvania, and it is routine for businesses other than Verizon to get such breaks.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: They promised PA stuff too I never claimed that businesses don't get tax breaks. I claimed that BA got breaks that no one else got and there is no disputing that. That was what the Chap 30 agreement was all about.
What other industries saw deregulation under Chap 30? | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: They promised PA stuff too said by Dogfather:What other industries saw deregulation under Chap 30? Well that was one particular law that applied to Verizon. I am saying there are other laws that grant other businesses tax breaks.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: They promised PA stuff too No one is disputing that. What some telco shills continue to claim is that Teletruth is lying about the billions in benefits that BA (now Verizon) got for high speed video and data services the telco never deployed.
They just continue to spout bull like "telelie" instead of actually supporting their claims or actually refuting the testimony of industry experts that Teletruth quotes in their Verizon PA report. Of course they'll completely ignore BA's own press releases and reports touting their Chapter 30 plans.
It's like they have never read the testimony, read the Chapter 30 agreement, or even Bell Atlantic's press releases and annual reports of the period.
The facts are indisputable. BA got billions in benefits from deregulation, all of which Dr. Lee Selwyn details in his testamony, and Chapter 30 spells out EXACTLY what speeds and services were required to be deployed and by when. And there is certainly no disputing that BA (now Verizon) didn't live up to their promises in Chapter 30, meanwhile kept the estimated 4 billion dollars in goodies they received. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: They promised PA stuff too said by Dogfather:It's like they have never read the testimony, read the Chapter 30 agreement, or even Bell Atlantic's press releases and annual reports of the period. The facts are indisputable. BA got billions in benefits from deregulation, all of which Dr. Lee Selwyn details in his testamony, and Chapter 30 spells out EXACTLY what speeds and services were required to be deployed and by when. And there is certainly no disputing that BA (now Verizon) didn't live up to their promises in Chapter 30, meanwhile kept the estimated 4 billion dollars in goodies they received. Chapter 30 was neither an "agreement" nor a "promise". Would you mind posting the rest of the testimony? The PA PUC, who received all of the testimony, decided to rescind Chapter 30. | |
| | | | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: They promised PA stuff too The Chapter 30 law was both. It spelled out what BA was to do and what they were to receive.
I posted Dr. Selwyn's testimony in its entirety. If you want to find other testimony you can do so yourself. Teletruth has additional excerpts from testimony given as well as excerpts from BA's own annual reports and press releases. Even now, Verizon claims that DSL satisfies the original Chapter 30 agreement when it obviously doesn't.
Meanwhile, when did they rescind it, before or after BA's original commitment dates were to be met? They weakened the deal (letting Verizon off the hook completely) only AFTER BA/VZ failed miserably and didn't deploy sh!t.
I'm just waiting to see what facts there are to support TK's claim that BA didn't get billions in deregulation benefits in exchange for the 45Mb deployment that never happened and that teletruth is lying. I've posted the testimony of a well known industry expert who clearly states how they did along with actual number data.
The facts are few and simple.
In exchange for deregulation and other goodies the telco was supposed to deploy 45Mb service for data and video. They got the deregulation, talked about their big plans in their press releases and annual reports, but in actuality didn't deploy anything.
As a direct result of the deregulation they made billions and billions more in profits, company specific tax breaks and other goodies which is what Dr. Selwyn's testimony describes and PA telco subs got nothing. In fact when it was finally time for Verizon to roll out fiber, they started in Texas instead of PA.
That's it...not exactly rocket science. | |
|
|  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | No kidding. When I see Verizon promising to roll out DSL to rural small towns, I get the uncontrollable urge to laugh. It's just not something they ever do.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Looks like 1 of those 2 forgotten towns is ON THE LIST
At first glance it doesn't appear that Shutesbury and Leverett are on the list »www.boston.com/business/ticker/2···ils.html
The company will also build DSL internet service to Becket, Blandford, Colrain, Cummington, Florida, Goshen, Hancock, Heath, Leverett, It looks like Leverett, on 2nd glance, is on the list.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA | Verizon is not running any new FIOS in Mass This is very misleading, making it look like they are running FIOS into new areas. WRONG. The communities listed where they applying for FIOS video franchises are communities that are already wired or are in the process of wiring. Verizon has made it quite clear that they do not intend to begin wiring for FIOS in any more communities in Massachusetts. They've already cherry picked the profitable areas and the rest be damned. | |
| | | | Re: Verizon is not running any new FIOS in Mass Wake me up in 10 years when they get around to thinking about wiring Boston for FIOS. | |
| | | wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA | Re: Verizon is not running any new FIOS in Mass Verizon has also told Worcester to it has no plans to wire it. | |
|
| |
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Ok and..... quote:
Though the company just received the regulatory approval it needs to sell its DSL lines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Verizon apparently wants to keep the more profitable (and less rural) Massachusetts.
Is this supposed to be surprising to anyone? The article makes it seem like thats shocking or unexpected. People all too quickly forget that we are talking about a large, publicly traded company here. Verizon, like any other company, exists solely to make money. Based on that, how is it news worthy that they decided to keep a profitable area??
--
с новым годом | |
|  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Lazy Friday Must be a slow day at Corporate cause one look at the message board and you can see it's full of Verizon employees, share holders, lobbyists. No one believes all this bull except you. Everyone here knows what a sham, rip off company Verizon is and they raped Pennsylvania. I hope NY holds out on FIOS deployment just so we can rub it in your face. Lower Middle class folk getting deployment prior to affluent white folk? God Forbid. Don't let it happen Verizon. The last thing we want is for them to be able to access information. Hell it may improve their awareness hence the quality of their children's lives as they utilize the internet. | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Lazy Friday The myth of Verizon red-lining being based on income rises its head again- it's based entirely on where they can cheaply get fiber (which means areas with a lot of MDUs or rural areas are out) and can get the franchises they want. Suburbs tend to be ideal here, with a lot of single-family homes that are reasonably close together- but if you look at deployment there are "poorer" communities on the list and "rich" communities being left out. Verizon doesn't hate the poor or love the rich, they just want to make themselves rich. It's not a charity. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: DSL only for W.Massachusetts I doubt it. Unless they build the network themselves. | |
|
pherret
join:2004-03-05
Sturbridge, MA | small state big obstacles Massachusetts has a high population density in the east and quite rural on in the west. Many of the towns mentioned have populations under 3000 in geographically large areas. Western Ma also has rocky and difficult terrain make for expensive installations.( even mobile service is sketchy!) I live in a western /central border town (pop 9800) along the MASSPIKE (lots of fiber was installed along this road some years back) that got cable tv in the mid-eighty's and DSL in late 03...no word on FIOS here (and this is a fairly wealthy bedroom community )so I'm not sure its just "cherry picking" ...as for city, I lived in Worcester for 8 years ...cable infrastructure is a mess but its there.. got DSL in 1999 and was told at the time there was no other subscribers in a several block area from me.. so i'm not sure that Fios would sell that well there at the price point its sold at today.. Recent news here was Governor is trying to get unserved community's wired up.
| |
|  Rob AJets AFC ChampionshipPremium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | how about nj Still no fios here... | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: how about nj You guys are lucky, you state has a minimum buildout clause and timeframe. | |
|
| | Chicago north - vestern suburbs not connected to Fios Seems that Verizon has no interest in the Chicago area  Perheaps the idea not to compete with another big player like Comcast. Here is clearly the federal guvern responsable to accept this. | |
| | | Where you @ When are you guys coming to El Paso. I am sick and tired of RR & ATT.
Pretty please? | |
|
| |
|
|
