Verizon's Copper-to-Fiber Migrations Set Glacial Pace
Company Pushing Most Users to LTE, Cable
Given Verizon's FiOS expansion has stopped in most places (unless you're somewhere with franchise obligations), the only way DSL users will be getting FiOS is if your regional core infrastructure is upgraded and
your line is perennially problematic. During yesterday's earnings call Verizon stated
they migrated some 223,000 "troublesome" lines from copper to fiber, most of those in regions impacted by Sandy.
The company says they plan to migrate another 300,000 copper users in 2013. With 3.3 million copper users, Dan Jones at Light Reading
correctly notes that's a rather slow pace:
The transition from copper to fiber in areas where FiOS is available, however, will be a long-term process. Shammo said Verizon hit its target of 200,000 customers moved in 2012 and that "our target is 300,000 this year." Verizon currently still has some 3.3 million customers on copper. So it will be a long-term process for Verizon to actually see all the savings it gets from not operating copper, particularly as its FiOS footprint in the U.S. is by no means comprehensive.
Unmentioned is what happens to the majority of the rest of those un-upgraded customers. As we've been noting, Verizon's hiking prices on many of them by forcing them to bundle old-fashioned voice service
, which either results in those users fleeing to more-expensive and heavily capped Verizon LTE, or into the arms of cable operators
. That's assuming that Verizon doesn't engage in another round of asset sales to a smaller telco. These are customers Verizon simply no longer wants, but the telco's beating around the bush about that fact.
Re: And what ?
said by BosstonesOwn:I still don't believe there is. I think Verizon's goal is to force users to their Fixed LTE service with low caps and high overages.
And people are saying there was no gentlemans agreement with the cable co's ?
Any of those people want to buy a bridge in brooklyn , real cheap. You can even put up tolls in both directions if you want !
If they get rid of a few high bandwidth users in the process, I doubt they'll care.
| |kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
why did VZ deploy Fiber in the first place? When Verizon first deployed FIOS back in late 2004 I think it was, I was hopeful they would actually make the effort to at least try and deploy the new network across their entire landline service area. When it became clear for me around 2009 that Verizon had not and likely will not expand further than the lucky people that already had the service by then, I was disappointed in them. In the city I lived in when I almost had a shot at FIOS, I to this day only know of like 2 or 3 neighborhoods which can get it, all new houses of course. Was the whole point of deploying this network to tease people? To say Here this is what we can provide home users, if you want to move? Why not at least go the VDSL route if they truly just want to give up on Fiber in the rest of their service area? Either way though, I'm quite disappointed in what Verizon has decided to do. I can only hope that one day they will get some folks on board that realize how useful it is to invest in a future proof network. I in the meantime can only hope that LTE is decent
Santa Monica, CA
Re: why did VZ deploy Fiber in the first place? Verizon deployed Fiber because the FCC told them they would be mostly exempt from any line-sharing requirements, and thus, the potential for profit.
But the problem remains that consumers won't subscribe the product in numbers sufficient to be profitable, or pursue the "unupgraded" markets.
Meanwhile, cable and LTE, among other technologies, continue to evolve, becoming more viable and cost-effective, further driving the nail in the coffin on costly FTTH for low-density settings.
Re: why did VZ deploy Fiber in the first place? VZ has essentially deployed FiOS and spent money as it said it would almost a decade ago. I don't understand why people don't recognize that. I also won't understand why people don't acknowledge VZ's focus is on its LTE build right now. Wait until that is done and see where VZ's strategic plan takes the business next.
"Short sighted" money is such a minority (although vocal) part of the market. Big money (e.g., pension funds, large investment firms, etc.) generally invest for longer term...at least in solid/growing businesses. Big money wants solid growth and effective employment of capital; reinvestment and return to shareholders. And there's nothing wrong with any of that.
| |said by kd6cae:The key thing to remember when searching for the "why" in corporate decision-making is, what is good for shareholders is often NOT good for customers. Like most other publicly traded companies, VZ is out to please its owners (shareholders) first, its key executives second, and (if there is any room left over) its customers.
When Verizon first deployed FIOS back in late 2004 I think it was, I was hopeful they would actually make the effort to at least try and deploy the new network across their entire landline service area.
Re: And what ? Fixed LTE cannot handle that many users. The network is already starting to slow down in some areas just because of phones and tablets.
Re: And what ?
said by silbaco:This is why Verizon needs more spectrum. I'm pretty sure any spectrum they get from the OTA TV auctions will be used solely for fixed LTE or it should. Of course it'll be 3 years before that gets deployed. And also when they refarm their 1X and 3G spectrum some of that can be used for fixed LTE. But that might not happen for 8 more years.
Fixed LTE cannot handle that many users. The network is already starting to slow down in some areas just because of phones and tablets.
·Time Warner Cable
| Think about it. You run a business. The mission is to be profitable. If Verizon "coerces" DSL users to bundle POTS with internet this is way more profitable than converting to a FIOS 3-play in the near term.|
They have to know that the prices of the optical/LTE equipment is only going to go down, so the longer they sweat the assets the better they are. Once they switch to advanced, they get way more capacity and distance.
Only if it becomes more expensive to maintain copper does it make sense to convert them to FIOS. With cable already offering a superior product to DSL, upgrading the infrastructure doesn't make any sense unless they go optical or LTE.
LTE is a luxury right now, but over time it will become more affordable once they can get enough backhaul capacity and go to advanced.
Out of all the major telcos, Verizon by far is the most progressive on both wired and wireless, so I don't know why there is always bashing going on.
In my area it's patchy. Some have FIOS, others don't. I get the impression that the communities that didn't get it are in general hostile to business, so they get what they deserve. For sure Buffalo gets the shaft. Interestingly enough though, the downtown is heavily wired for optical for businesses.
I'm here to say that FIOS is leaps better than Time Warner in customer service and product, and my Verizon cell can't even be touched in UNY and in the NE in general. Oh, and my cellular ipad (Verizon) is so fast I can't tell the difference between a Wifi or LTE link.
Bon Aqua, TN
..... yet theres not enough spectrum for this soo called move ::rollseyes::
Money money money money money
How is this legal? Seems like if any politician really knew what Verizon was doing, they would have a look.
Re: How is this legal? I don't know about it being illegal. You can't force a company to carry a product it doesn't want. Just like you can't force BMW to make inexpensive cars. I know there is Regulatory rules about phone service, but that just means if you sell that product you have to sell it to everyone, not that you have to sell the product at all. Even then this is Data not Voice service they are talking about, which isn't as regulated. so Yeah I think its completely legal. I would guess like Karl hints at, that Verizon is waiting for a Critical mass number to be reached and then will sell off all remaining Cooper lines.
Re: How is this legal? You're comparing BMW (a business) to a telco company (utility).
Are you saying that Verizon should be treated like a utility and be able to run like a business?
That's a double standard.
Re: How is this legal? As a "utility", Verizon is only obligated to provide voice telephony, and even that is being phased out in many states. Everything else is unregulated. And fiber-to-the-home was specifically exempted from regulation by the Telecommunications Act of 1997.
| || I think the days of Verizon being a Utility are numbered. Right now your correct they seem to have the best of both worlds, acting as a utility where they want to maintain a Monopoly and as a Business where they have competition, like Data and Video services. So you are correct I don't think they should get to be both. I would guess their goal is to be treated like a business. Since Data services are not a Necessity like say Water, and not regulated, then that part is Business and as a business its not illegal to drop an under performing product line. |
LTE I have not seen anyone pushed to LTE, anywhere. And as I said before, you cannot push towns/cities to LTE. There isn't enough capacity. Verizon knows this. And no amount of Spectrum is going to change that at this time.
My prediction, once they move more people to FiOS, they will re-investigate deploying FiOS to other cities. FiOS is profitable. Halted deployment does not mean halted, forever.
said by silbaco:Oh really?...Verizon said the party for new suburban and rural FIOS was over two years ago after the short-investors beat the CEO like a rabid dog.
My prediction, once they move more people to FiOS, they will re-investigate deploying FiOS to other cities. FiOS is profitable.
Re: LTE Investors talk, but they are not going to get a CEO fired because he deployed more fiber. It is just a convenient excuse for Verizon. Investors know that eventually the company will have to invest some more money if they want to make more. They don't like to admit it, but they know it. Verizon will expand FiOS eventually.
Re: LTE They won't. There is too much money on the table with LTE overages at $10 per GB.
google Any Verizon area that they dont want to upgrade, how funny if Google came to the area to do their FTTH, Verizon immediately take them court
Too EXPENSIVE ! The reason why they don't have as many subscribers as they potentially could with FIOS is because they charge OUTRAGEOUS prices for the service. It is like they actually are TRYING to deter folks from signing up for the service. Intentional ? Perhaps.
I think Verizon and ATT never wanted to support the wired (fiber) infrastructure in the first place when wireless came along. They are so freaking GREEDY that they want ONLY to focus on the absolute maximal profit down to the last penny. Typical SHORT SIGHTED AMERICAN MBA attitude.
The MBA will be the death of businesses that have any integrity at all.
Even former GM Bob Lutz said that MBAs are KILLING US companies with their deranged shortsightedness and greed mongering.