dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Verizon Tries, Fails to Justify Forcing Landlines On DSL Users
It Will...Improve Your Experience...Yeah That's It
by Karl Bode 12:34PM Friday Apr 06 2012
As we noted yesterday, Verizon has decided to wind the clock back to 2005 and will no longer sell DSL services to new users without a landline. Worse perhaps, users on existing standalone DSL lines will be forced to add voice service (whether they wanted it or not) if they make changes to their existing service. It's a particularly obnoxious move for those who know the long and silly history of painfully convincing telcos to offer standalone DSL, which at several points required regulatory intervention.

Verizon has since confirmed our story and the move, telling several outlets that the decision was necessary to offer "competitively priced services" and to improve the user experience:
quote:
In a statement, Verizon said it was making the move so that it can control its cost structure more effectively, "enabling us to continue providing competitively priced services to existing and new customers." The company noted that: “The vast majority of our DSL customers enjoy it as part of a bundle with reliable home voice and TV service. By bundling, customers receive a better overall experience and value by having multiple services as part of a package."
That's of course nonsense, with yet another marketing department trying to convince consumers that an anti-consumer move somehow magically improves the Internet "experience." It's also not clear how forcing users to pay for a landline (and the endless fees tacked onto them) can be considered "competitive pricing." Verizon's reverting to forced landline bundling for one reason: to milk additional money from DSL users. Verizon has made it abundantly clear that these users aren't a serious part of their future broadband plans as the company focuses on more profitable mobile and fixed LTE (Home Fusion) services.

view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

Are cable execs moonlighting at the telcos?

The only conclusion I can reach is that cable execs are secretly moonlighting at the telcos and implementing strategies that will run the telcos' businesses into the ground.

Let's see now...you have a business that's getting pummeled by the cable companies, so, to improve it, you implement practices that will have the effect of alienating the customers you have left. Wow, that's absolutely brilliant! But I guess the thinking is that it will boost profits in the short term, and I have said repeatedly that I don't think most companies and investors are focused any further than that.

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 recommendation

Re: Are cable execs moonlighting at the telcos?

said by ISurfTooMuch:

The only conclusion I can reach is that cable execs are secretly moonlighting at the telcos and implementing strategies that will run the telcos' businesses into the ground.

I guess it would only be fair since the TELCO execs seem to have been moonlighting at the cable companies during their voice rollouts. Here on Long Island, you cannot get voice service from the cable company unless you also subscribe to their high speed internet. There is no connection between the two just corporate policy.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
You hit the nail right on the head.... The cable spectrum deal MUST be blocked, or given obscenely strict rules.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: Are cable execs moonlighting at the telcos?

And when it is; that happens. SpectrumCo will just lease it and still say "sorry but we still own it and we can lease it to who we wish". And when they don't get their way; expect wireless prices to go up to as much as the market will bare and it will go up to extreme rates and nothing nobody will do.
Technicholas
Premium
join:2010-11-11
Winterset, IA

Improve experence?

It Will...Improve Your Experience...Yeah right.

money

@comcast.net

Re: Improve experence?

It will...improve the USF. 'Cause ya know, those government assisted cell phone services suck up USF funding like a vacuum, and those funds have to be replinished from somewhere...
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Re: Improve experence?

said by money :

It will...improve the USF. 'Cause ya know, those government assisted cell phone services suck up USF funding like a vacuum, and those funds have to be replinished from somewhere...

BINGO! ... and we have a winner.

Also, they're enjoy the added revenue from forcing landlines on to customers again. They already charge a higher price for naked-DSL, but they can get EVEN MORE by forcing that land line back on to the bill as well.

These phone companies who feel they need to shore up their wireline service often forget one thing when they talk about how they're losing money on the wire service... they shifted many of their users on to a much more expensive and profitable wireless service (that they also own) that is doing rather well for them. So, as they complain and moan about the lost land line revenue they need to simply dip into their wireless and shore up the wireline.

This is case of more historic and typical phone company greed that has plagued this nation since they came into existence.

NyQuil Kid
8f The Nyquil Kid

join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ

Re: Improve experence?

I'll take the greed of a company over the (so-called) noble intentions of an overbearing and always growing government thanks.
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

Wow

I'm willing to cut them a little more slack than Karl is on the time it took to make dry DSL available. DSL was initially offered as an additional service over voice, so voice charges carried the load for line maintenance, central office buildings, provisioning systems, billing systems, etc. Allocating those costs to DSL only subscribers wasn't easy. However, that's all in place now.

I agree completely that forcing new DSL subscribers to take voice just to get the monthly revenue up is goofy. The problem is that while voice is regulated in most states, DSL isn't. Not sure what the states can due to stop them.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1

The way this blog reads...

It sounds like they are offering DSL+POTS at the same price as stand alone DSL. Is that the case? If so, I can see that would improve customer expereince.
--
-M

clock

join:2007-05-02
Roslindale, MA

Re: The way this blog reads...

No, you'll be looking at $10-$30/month more than just standalone DSL, + the usual taxes and fees.

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
said by Mizzat:

It sounds like they are offering DSL+POTS at the same price as stand alone DSL. Is that the case? If so, I can see that would improve customer expereince.

You would probably get a usual discount for a bundle service but you still would be paying more. You would pay up to $30 for having the basic local phone service. Then Verizon would offer long distance plans which would cost even more. Then add on the usual phone line insurance which they try to convince you to buy.

So add it all up and you'll be paying double or more than what you were normally paying.
bcltoys

join:2008-07-21
Lost today

Verizon/Verizon wireless are a bunch of

Dou**bags.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: Verizon/Verizon wireless are a bunch of

You do realize that they are two separate companies right? And by law they are NOT allowed to become one. The only thing they share is a stock symbol. Other than that VZW is NOT Verizon Wireless- only a brand name. VZW is actually CellCo Partnership. Always has been. Always will be.

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Re: Verizon/Verizon wireless are a bunch of

The may be different companies, but to think they are completely separate is naive, their billing systems are even linked, I pay for all 4 services FiOS, phone, TV and cell through either verizonwireless.com or verizon.com

They coordinate their actions without a doubt.

H McKelvey

@comcastbusiness.net
On paper they are two different companies. However, Verizon Wireless and Verizon Proper have been sharing the same "network" for years. Add to this the fact that Verizon's Current CEO is from Verizon Wireless. Two different companies yes, but highly involved in an incestuous relationship.
tkdslr

join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Speakeasy

Re: Verizon/Verizon wireless are a bunch of

Verizon Communications is a 55% owner of Verizon Wireless..
Vodafone owns the other 45% of Verizon Wireless..

The partners received a $10B distribution from Verizon Wireless in 2011.

Thus for conflict of interest purposes they are the same.

Elector

join:2000-05-25
Albany, NY

1 recommendation

Vodafone Group Plc is the partner in the wireless venture.

Verizon Telephone which is losing land line customers hand over fist is trying to make DSL users get landline service and for only one reason. To milk as much money out of as many people they can get their grubby hands on. Greed pure and simple.

With more folks going wireless and I believe I have read that the market for wireless is getting smaller and smaller, hence the meter billing, the high overages for GB and the throttling back for whatever reason, again the revnue sources are drying up. The phone company has to find a way to grab more money from the consumers, forcing a land line service is more than a way to double and triple the small DSL charge they are getting now.

They charge for the DSL, then it will be for the telephone you don't need, then add in taxes and surcharges and you are looking at a bill almost three times what you are paying now.

I remember years ago I had DSL and then it was the Freedom package and with TV bundled the so called $99 a month was around $150 real savings, yeah right.

Dry loop at one time cost me $30 a month that was it. Did not need long distance or telephone service since it was on my wireless plan. So again some sort of State or Federal regulators have to get involved and knock Verizon back to their place.
--
Knowledge is a terrible thing to waste. That is why I post when I can.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Verizon/Verizon wireless are a bunch of

said by Elector:

Greed pure and simple.

Greed: Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self

Since they are passing it on to stockholders the Greed definition doesn't apply.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
If verizon owns 55% of verizon wireless, then they really are the same company.
Verizon is in full control of verizon wireless thus making verizon wireless their subsidiary.

Technically they are a company inside another company, but control wise they are one as verizon controls them.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

next alternate reality shoe to drop

time warner and/or cablevision getting in bed with AT&T?
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: next alternate reality shoe to drop

TWC is up Sprint's ass the same as the other MSOs. Who do you think powers their Digital phone product? Sprint. The stupid thing Sprint did was move to sue them. And since TWC and the others get their DIDs direct from Sprint (due to them being CHEAP) they can't really move with their long term contracts. And CV wanted T-Mobile due to the UMA/UTMS network of wifi calling; would make a great network partner for MNVO.

Video Guy

@verizon.net

Re: next alternate reality shoe to drop

Not all. Cox has it's own switching infrastructure. They rolled circuit-switched voice in the late 1990s with DMS Switches just like the ones Bell uses. Later, they migrated to VoIP but using overlays onto those switches with new markets using a more pure VoIP solution. They have their own hardware, their own connections to the PSTN, 100% like an ILEC, no leasing anything from Sprint. The other MSOs partnered with Sprint to catch up (Comcast, TWC, etc.). Not sure if they are all still doing that today.

Elector

join:2000-05-25
Albany, NY
Another funny thing happened on Friday. When we got home Time Warner sent us an invitation to have Home Phone for free since we are such great customers. (For 1 year it said) but can frop it after that year.

Even at free we turned them down. We use Magic Jack+ now as we used the original Magic Jack for all our long distance and local calls while at home or while on vacation. Can't beat that $20 a year. I have seen where next year the service is going up to $30 a year. But still a good deal when compared to the high costs associated with Verizon Telephone.

Yes we also use our cell phones many times for both local and long distance calls. But while at home why bother with the cell?
--
Knowledge is a terrible thing to waste. That is why I post when I can.

IllIlIlllIll
EliteData
Premium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7

Yup

anything they can find to fill the void of the cash flopped fios deployment - this is just one of the many soon to come.
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105

Now I know who was hired by the Verizon marketing dept.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzcWPKAv2Ow

hatevz

@optonline.net

vz sucks

Lowell McAdam is a tool
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

Go for the $7 local service

I mean, if you're forced to. I've got it for my alarm system, which I am too lazy to upgrade to a modern system. I have no phones plugged in, telemarketers are annoying.
Brisk6

join:2003-07-11
Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Go for the $7 local service

I'd like to know where you'd get $7 POTS (including tax).
Here, unlimited local is $14.90 + $~11 in taxes, or about $26.
Maybe you're talking about metered pay-by-the-call service, but I don't think they would bundle that with DSL. Even if you can get service for $7, you still pay a heap of taxes and unfees.

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

Your life will be a living hell

They saying that your life will be a living hell if you don't get landline service?

How can forcing a particular service on a customer that they don't want improve their experience? There is really no fact to that statement. Technology companies sure you use that statement a lot and it's getting pretty old.

What they should say is:

In order to improve our companies bottom line, we will be forcing our customers to get our phone service. We would be happy if you don't use the service because supporting the service would not be a good experience for us.

alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

This will be a Win/Win for Verizon!

Verizon doesn't want to spend more money on their Copper Plant, and probably their DSL Service is in the Red. So the options are try to at least break even and sell Land Line with DSL, or loose their DSL Customers and get rid of the Copper Plant. Verizon could probably make more money on selling the Copper on the open market then selling their DSL Service.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: This will be a Win/Win for Verizon!

said by alchav:

Verizon doesn't want to spend more money on their Copper Plant, and probably their DSL Service is in the Red. So the options are try to at least break even and sell Land Line with DSL, or loose their DSL Customers and get rid of the Copper Plant. Verizon could probably make more money on selling the Copper on the open market then selling their DSL Service.

WTH??? Their DSL service isn't in the red. What is wrong with you? They paid off the lines and equipment eons ago. The only cost of providing service is maintenance, which is a pittance given Verizon's size.

What bothers Verizon is the margins involved. They're not high enough for the CEOs.

alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

Re: This will be a Win/Win for Verizon!

I worked and retired from a Telco, so I'm very familiar with all the cost involved. You say all the DSL Equipment and Copper Plant is paid for, that is correct but like you said it has to be maintained. That also means the Copper Plant has to be replaced were needed, and that is just about everywhere, Copper goes bad with time and it's very costly to replace. So the only reason they would add a Land Line to their DSL Service is to make up the cost. Like I said, if the people don't like the idea they will go somewhere else. Then Verizon could get rid of the Old DSL Equipment and Copper Plant, and only go with FiOS.
tkdslr

join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Speakeasy

Hmmm, I wonder if this was part of ...??

The recent deal with cable co's to sell Verizon their AWS wireless spectrum licenses?

Maybe it's time for some REAL anti-trust investigations?

P.S. Verizon wireless is co-owned by Verizon Communications Inc. (55 percent) and Vodafone Group Plc (45 percent). In 2011, Verizon wireless distributed $10B to the co owners.
Getreal4

join:2012-03-30

It's just numbers

Unfortunately the article is based on opinion (which is a common shared opinion) and doesn't incorporate any numbers. Most if not all multi-product companies of this nature have seen that customers with 1 line of business have a higher propensity to churn or disconnect over those who are bundled. It makes logical sense to then bundle every customer you can to lower this churn. If the daily reports show otherwise, then the business model will most likely change to follow trends of what customers find value in...aka experience. Land line is certainly not for everyone including myself. Best bet is drop the dsl and get high speed cable.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Even if your don't have DSL and use Cable...

Verizon just green lighted their Cable competition to raise prices $20 a month, because after all, what are you going to do.... cancel and switch to DSL + POTS and pay MORE?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

mior

@rr.com

verizon dsl is a joke

I live in rural upstate ny, verizon only offers 3 megs to my house. no way am i going to be forced to buy there crappy and over priced phone services. Once Slic fiber services arrives at my address in 2 months, i'm leaving dsl and never looking back. 10 meg down and 2 up for 45$ instead of verizon's 3 down and .768 up for 32$. Verizon has been nothing but a nightmare and i will NEVER recommend there land line services EVER or there stupid bait and switch all in one bundle crap. good riddance to shit services.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State

Except

Verizon is like AT&T. Neither one had a competitive bone in their body. They are both brutally anal.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside
ShellMMG

join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

Over my dead body (or a fish)

When Frontier brought in DSL they lobbied hard -- even tried to "bribe" me with a $50 VISA card -- to accept POTS. I dug in my heels and insisted on dry loop, telling them "I'd rather find a dead fish in my mailbox than have a landline phone again." We dumped that one-way street for telemarketers and obnoxious taxes over seven years ago and couldn't be happier. I *HATE* the phone worse than Gollum hates nasty Hobbitses.

I'll take the money I'm not paying to the bloated state and federal government in phone taxes and see if I can "coax" the tech guys from Frontier to hook me up to that lovely chunk of fiber that runs under the road...

Phone lines? Seriously??

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Why is. . . .

screwing you over always done in the name of "an improved experience"
call it what it is: a cash grab plain and simple!

minimeme

@charter.com

Re: Why is. . . .

said by dvd536:

screwing you over always done in the name of "an improved experience"
call it what it is: a cash grab plain and simple!

And that is what big business is all about, Nothing else, period!

Personally,
I hope ALL big conglomerate companies get run into the ground!!

It appears we need to go back to regulating EVERYTHING!

jhacker

join:2001-12-11
Peoria, IL

Comcast is no better

In our market, Comcast charges $60 a month for standalone internet. They always talk people into getting basic TV service for $15 and internet for $45. I don't see how Verizon is any worse in that respect. Both companies are sending the message that if you don't have at least 2 services from them, it costs too much to do business with you.
bidger

join:2009-12-23
Elmira, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: Comcast is no better

said by jhacker:

In our market, Comcast charges $60 a month for standalone internet. They always talk people into getting basic TV service for $15 and internet for $45. I don't see how Verizon is any worse in that respect.

I'd rather have broadband and basic cable bundled than DSL and landline since I have more alternatives for VOIP and cell than I do for TV service OTA. With basic cable, a cable card, and TiVo HD I could record all the broadcast networks in HD, something I can't do OTA.

I booted Verizon two years ago since it seemed they really didn't want to compete with TWC in my area and they've done nothing but confirm my assessment sine then.