Verizon's Hanging Up On Rural AmericaWhile pretending it's in your best interest 01:30PM Tuesday Nov 10 2009 by Karl Bodetags: coverage · business · Op/Ed · Verizon FIOS · Verizon Online DSLConsumer Group Free Press takes a few shots at Verizon's inconsistent positions on rural broadband, noting that while the baby bell continually claims to support getting broadband into the nation's rural nooks and crannies, their actions of late say the complete opposite. Forget FiOS -- the new Verizon is uninterested in delivering even DSL or phone service to most rural markets, which is why they're continually selling off these markets in tricky tax loophole leaping deals that usually wind up badly for the consumer and the sold markets: In sum, Verizon’s new business strategy is offloading its rural customers to small (now debt-ridden) companies tax free because it can't be bothered with rural America anymore, preferring to focus on those high-paying urban and suburban customers. Verizon's justification of course is that rural America is costly to wire. That doesn't mean rural America can't be profitable -- it's just not profitable enough, quickly enough for impatient Verizon executives and shareholders. The telco is now trying to get regulatory approval for their latest sale of customers to Frontier Communications, and in a filing with the FCC essentially argues that Frontier will do a better job than Verizon ever did at treating rural customers well: As of June 20, 2009, Verizon offered broadband service to approximately 62.5% of the customers in these service areas. By contrast, as of that time, Frontier offered broadband to about 92% of its customer base, even though those areas are on average even more rural than the new Frontier areas. Of course Verizon couldn't care less about these markets post sale or whether they ever see service -- their interest is in the huge tax write off and debt dump these Reverse Morris Trust deals usually provide. The company gets it all with these deals -- they get to claim a deep respect for rural customers, yet fail to actually service them with broadband service. After decades of neglecting the infrastructure in some of their less sexy states, Verizon now gets to use their own deployment failures as evidence why these deals make so much sense moving forward. As a nice little cherry on top, Verizon gets a huge tax break and debt relief. But as Fairpoint and Hawaii Telcom customers found out, the companies that wind up buying these discarded Verizon markets are usually so laden with debt from Verizon's fancy financial footwork, they can't afford to upgrade the network. After deals are approved by lazy regulators (most of whom are in Verizon's pocket), the companies either slide into bankruptcy or stumble their way through mediocrity.
Related:- Verizon To Release Broadband Uber Phone
- Verizon Reports Largest FiOS Additions To Date
- Is Verizon Considering Metered Billing?
- Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial
- Verizon Again Threatens Massachusetts Investment
- Verizon Named Most Trusted Company With Your Privacy. Really?
- Verizon: Metered Broadband Is Coming
- Verizon Again Hints At Metered Billing
|
 pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland |  Why do state regulators approve these sales?
| |
|  | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Why do state regulators approve these sales? cause they are strapped for funds and don't want to be in court until hell freezes over is my guess, along with the lobby money 
--
BlooMe | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| govt in the US does not work for the people; it works for whoever pays them the most. since telecom is a very lucrative business, there is lots of money to buy off legislators, regulators, etc.
until that changes, "the people" will continue to get the shaft in all parts of life. | |
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: Why do state regulators approve these sales? That sounds like corporatism ( a form of fascism) | |
| | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | I suspect those regulators have neighbors that work for Verizon. And chaching...hey, your kid going to college? You should see my BMW.... 
--
Splat | |
| | 
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA | No decent rural service from Verizon, and yet Verizon "proudly claims" their 3G service covers every square inch of Kansas, where AT&T covers nowhere. Something they're saying isn't right. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: Why do state regulators approve these sales? 3G is cheaper to deploy than DSL, especially when you've got 5GB caps on 3G. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by burgerwars  :No decent rural service from Verizon, and yet Verizon "proudly claims" their 3G service covers every square inch of Kansas, where AT&T covers nowhere. Something they're saying isn't right. VZW and VZ have different corporate cultures. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Why do state regulators approve these sales? but OWNED by VZ. VZ has a say so in that company. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Why do state regulators approve these sales? But it is Controlled by VZ. So yah it's basically owned. | |
| | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| »Verizon's Hanging Up On Rural America After deals are approved by lazy regulators (most of whom are in Verizon's pocket) If they are all in "Verizon's pocket" as you say, then why aren't they(at least some of them) in prison? Surely with all those public interest groups out there looking to nail all the major telcos hides to their wall, they would have gotten dirt on the regulatory members and had them indicted. Given that there is a definite lack of prosecutions, I submit that the vast majority of regulators are not in the telcos pocket and are actually(if not effectively) looking out for the best interests of their states citizens.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: State regulators NOT in Verizon's pocket Umm, ALL our politicians are in the megacorps pockets, I don't see any of them being arrested either. The simple fact is this, the so called 'regulators' are nothing more than PAID SHILLS who do the biddings of the megacorps, and do not serve the people they are hired to represent. And, for the record, the 'payoff' for a regulator is a cushy job at the megacorp after their term is up, EXACTLY what happens to corrupt congressional staffers.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | 
Mookytc
join:2000-11-10
North Tonawanda, NY | Happened in Maine. Relatives state their it has been poor at best since Verizon backed out.
DC | |
| 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | Since they don't want to deploy to rural America.. Maybe it is about time we stop giving them USF money. | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Since they don't want to deploy to rural America.. USF isn't given wholesale. The specific project has to request it.
Aren't you happy though that Verizon is giving these to other companies? Surely the problem was that it was Verizon owned all along and had nothing to do with the lack of profit motive. | |
| | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| Clarity Please? Even after reading the Wikipedia article on Reverse Morris Trusts, I find the whole thing a bit confusing with the description of selling off things in a "tax efficient" manner. Karl, can you provide a more concrete example of the "tax efficiencies" provided by this type of sale? Perhaps it's just me having an off-day, but I'm obviously missing something here.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
| | | | | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Clarity Please? said by morbo :it's not you, it's everyone. it's a sneaky, confusing little tax scheme that Verizon just loves to death. unfortunately for them, we're onto it... I am sure that just about everyone on BBR who pays taxes does everything that he or she can to avoid paying any tax whenever possible, within the confines of the law, so I see nothing wrong with Verizon doing the same thing.
But again, why should Verizon be held to account when it is the smaller companies which made these poor business decisions? Verizon did not hold a gun to their heads and force them to enter into these agreements.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Clarity Please? Just one of those old-fashioned American things called caring about your fellow man. It`s so last-century, I know. | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Clarity Please? said by sonicmerlin :Just one of those old-fashioned American things called caring about your fellow man. It`s so last-century, I know. Which has zero to do with taxes. If anything, higher taxes detract from people being able to donate money to charity to help people.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | | 
Van
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Washington, DC
·Cox HSI
·Comcast
| Re: Clarity Please? said by pnh102 :said by sonicmerlin :Just one of those old-fashioned American things called caring about your fellow man. It`s so last-century, I know. Which has zero to do with taxes. If anything, higher taxes detract from people being able to donate money to charity to help people. People use that as an excuse but anyone who wants to donate to charity finds a way even if it is less than originally planned | |
| thecybernerd
Premium
join:2007-01-05
Great Falls, VA | LTE Verizon should be selling off all their landline networks in rural areas so they can deploy 4G services to those areas quicker! Verizon says LTE will cover its entire current footprint by 2013. | |
| | 
DustySilicon
join:2002-10-06
Oak Grove, MO | Re: LTE "smoke and mirrors"... Verizon: The new Doug Henning of 2009. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: LTE said by iansltx :Wonder what the cap will be. Seriously, in many areas Verizon doesn't have fiber to their towers (areas where Verizon isn't the ILEC). Maybe they'll pull a Clearwire and push bandwidth via wireless and all will be well, but I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon slapped a 20-50GB cap on LTE service, though OTOH they might not and everything will be fine and dandy. There won't be a cap, just pay per byte billing. | |
| | | | | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Nicely biased reporting. I wish the national news outlets allowed more reporting like yours, Karl. Maybe something would happen. | |
| | | | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Nicely biased reporting. And what reason benefits the average consumer?
Hate to break it to you, but VZ is right - rural areas with low amounts of customers per mile ARE more expensive to cable (with any sort of cabling) than suburban or urban areas; worse, the lack of customer density makes it difficult, if not impossible, to recoup the investments required to cable those areas. (Ask any electric utility, let alone a cable or telecom company, whether ILEC or CLEC, anywhere.) Most of the area that VZ wants to sell off used to be Ameritech territory, which is mostly rural, with customer densities approaching miles-per-customer than customers per mile.
The Rural Electrification Act was actually designed to deal with this (while the original purview of the REA dealt with power cabling, it expanded to cover cable-TV and other forms of communications; Service Electric is a child of the REA); why haven't Frontier (or FairPoint, come to think of it) applied for Rural Telecommunications Grants for their areas?
While southern Maryland today is becoming more densely populated, it was not the case even twenty years ago; it is served almost entirely for electrical needs by the customer-owned Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., and is a true child of the REA (as is Service Electric, as I mentioned). | |
| | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: Nicely biased reporting. You do realize there are numerous rural fiber providers out there that are profitable, right? The issue has always been the rate of profit, not whether one can actually make a profit. Companies like Verizon are forced by shareholders into considering only extremely short-term gains. | |
| | | | |
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Nicely biased reporting. said by sonicmerlin :You do realize there are numerous rural fiber providers out there that are profitable, right? The issue has always been the rate of profit, not whether one can actually make a profit. Companies like Verizon are forced by shareholders into considering only extremely short-term gains. And their ownership structure is what? How many of those are shareholder owned, as opposed to either municipal, private, or cooperatives?
In fact, name five RURAL fiber providers that are both shareholder-owned and profitable.
Whether anyone likes it or not, public ownership (through stock and debt, which is how any public corporation normally operates) pretty much limits what the operations of a corporation are geared toward. The original AT&T (Bell System) was a VERY long-term-geared company by design because its mission was straightforward - provide dial-tone-based local phone service throughout the United States. However, in order for a Bell System to be feasible, it could NOT be competed against. (It is why the term *natural monopoly* was coined - the creation of the Bell System was a National Priority.) AT&T, while a public corporation, paid a pittance for a stock dividend (and a similar pittance for interest on senior debt); however, that pittance was as reliable (if not more so) as the sunrise. (AT&T stock and senior debt was the ONLY corporate stock or debt purchased in the early days of the California Personnel Retirement System because of the reliability of those dividends and interest paybacks.) The sort of thinking that permitted that to happen does not exist in corporate America today, largely because that sort of thinking doesn't exist in the government of the United States today, either. (Nowadays, the thinking in the government, especially Congress, is that the ONLY long-term national operations allowable must be owned/operated by the government itself. Yes; that also implies that the 2008 failure of AIG/Lehman Brothers/FNMA/Freddie Mac was planned. Consider that, for all intents and purposes, we have indirectly nationalized the banking and financing system for personal property. How did those entities that are now majority-owned/operated/influenced by Congress get there? Don't JUST *follow the money*; follow the law, too.) | |
| | | | Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | said by PGHammer : Most of the area that VZ wants to sell off used to be Ameritech territory, which is mostly rural, with customer densities approaching miles-per-customer than customers per mile. Ameritech was one of the AT&T 1984 RBOC's, for the Midwest (IL, IN, Michigan, OH, and WI). In the Midwest, I do not know of any significant ex-Ameritech areas that Verizon holds now. In the Midwest, Verizon's territory is all ex-GTE territory. Verizon was a merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic. The significant old RBOC territory that Verizon has now(and will divest to Frontier), is West Virginia(ex Bell Atlantic).
Population density where I live: 1,800 people per square mile. Other nearby towns are 1,000 to 3,000 per square mile. A major metro nearby(part of this VZ-Frontier deal) has 2,800 to 3,700 people per square mile. | |
| LightS
join:2005-12-17
Granbury, TX
·EarthLink
| Ridiculous I feel sorry for those customers who live in Rural areas that can ONLY be served by Verizon. Will they just be SOL & Stuck with access to the internet?
What if there is no other provider for the consumer to be shifted over to?
This honestly is ridiculous. The corporate overlords of greed-ridden Verizon(or any other business for that matter, but honestly, this is just complete and utter disregard for others) are disappointed because rural regions bring in profit, just not "enough" to satisfy their needs. What about the consumers needs? It's getting ridiculous, they're abandoning rural service although HSI is still not available over the entire footprint of the USA. I know it's a lot of work, but they need to get ahead (geographically) before they fall back and start dropping their loyal customers.
Sorry, Verizon, this is just uncalled for.. Maybe it will benefit you in the long run, but not us. | |
| | ShellMMG
join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI
·Alltel Axess
| Re: Ridiculous *sigh* That would be me. Sprint is a joke, and AT&T is worse. The true irony is I'm only 3 miles from I-94 through lower Michigan. I was an Alltel customer who was Borgified into VZW last month.
Just a couple of points: I've lived with a cap (Wildblue) and never, EVER want to do that again. Monitoring FAP is a full-time job, and I was throttled rather than overcharged for exceeding the 70% usage limit on the cap. I'll never see copper let alone FIOS, but I understood the limitations when we moved to the area. Technology has finally reached us and I'm content with the 2-3MB down, but I live in dread of losing my grandfathered unlimited broadband account.
C'mon, Verizon, I'm a paying customer. I'd rather pay $60 a month to VZW rather than $0 for no internet at all, which is what I'll do rather than return to Wildblue. I don't live on Mars but it took LOTS of coffee shop wifi research to find internet access! How many other rural citizens don't know they can get broadband like wireless because there's been virtually no local advertising? I'm interested. I've been a good customer. I'd like to remain a good customer, but that 5G cap is a deal-breaker. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | Re: Ridiculous said by ShellMMG :*sigh* That would be me. Me too. And as I've mentioned before, it's not like it would be hard for VZ to do. Our neighborhood is served by a modern, DSL-capable remote terminal. A high-capacity inter-town VZ fiber connection runs right in front of my driveway; heck along the lot across the street runs a transoceanic fiber line, along a railraod ROW. None of it does any good to the residents here, just because VZ couldn't be bothered to spend a couple of hundred bucks a line on some DSL line cards.
We know it would be profitable; in neighborhoods a short distance away in Qwest territory, they have DSL. So does the typical Frontier neighborhood.
I welcome Frontier; they can't treat us any worse than Verzon treats us. | |
| 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Which one is it? "Verizon's justification of course is that rural America is costly to wire. That doesn't mean rural America can't be profitable -- it's just not profitable enough, quickly enough for impatient Verizon executives and shareholders."
The same thing was said when Verizon first started FiOS, by the same people. Yet Verizon was willing to stick it out and go ahead and wait for the profits. Are you suggesting that now they aren't? It seems more likely to me that they've run the numbers, and know that there aren't any profits, and possibly not even break even, in rural broadband. I'm assuming they're in a position to know
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| So? What's the problem? Why should Verizon be "bothered" with rural customers if they aren't willing to pay the freight for their service? Why should rural customers complain if the "big bad phone company" sells their accounts who someone who actually wants the business?
Why should urban and suburban customers be forced to subsidize their rural counterparts? Our phone bills already reflect more taxes and fees than basic service charges. Now we're supposed to pay so the farm can get better broadband?
I don't think so. | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| So What? So Verizon sells these networks to other companies which then engage in poor business decisions (Fairpoint decided to upgrade a working network in New England and give its executives bonuses) and that is somehow Verizon's fault?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: So What? Does Vz control Fairpoint? | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: So What? said by jjeffeory :Does Vz control Fairpoint? No.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: So What? Isn't Fairpoint owned by Verizon, and therefore "guided" by Verizon. I mean, I was just in Maine this whole last week and spoke with locals about it. There's no secret that Fair point is influenced by Verizon there... | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: So What? said by jjeffeory :Isn't Fairpoint owned by Verizon, and therefore "guided" by Verizon. No. They are 2 separate companies. BBR reported that Fairpoint did pay Verizon to run the network that Fairpoint bought after the sale was done, but outside of that they are 2 separate companies.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
·Verizon Online DSL
·DIRECTV
2 edits | Re: Verizon forgets the history of how Rural America was wired. Mr. Matt,
Not sure about what % of rural phone companies were cooperatives, but I do know facts in my rural area of Central Illinois.
My old hometown(and nearby towns) had phone companies started/owned by small entrepreneurs in early 20th century. Companies were passed down through the family or friends. As the decades went on, more and more sold out to General Telephone, or other smaller acquiring companies. General Telephone expanded by buying hundreds/thousands of rural phone companies. In Illinois, AT&T had the big cities, but not the smaller cities/towns.
As of now, 1 owned by FairPoint, 1 by Verizon, 1 by Frontier, and other has a combo of owners(a N Carolina company, a Colorado investment partnership, and some local minority owners). | |
| | |
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Verizon forgets the history of how Rural America was wired. And why did GTE become what it did? Because it found itself running into the behemoth that was (at the time) AT&T (while the Justice Department had filed suit, the trial was not even close to beginning), which was still all of a piece. GTE's problem was pretty darn simple - grow or die. | |
| | | 
HellsBells
@pacbell.net
| Bob,
To add some color of the exchanges being sold in southern California, the Alpine (Markleeville/Woodfords) and Coleville exchanges are very remote from other areas that Verizon serves in California, namely Mammoth Lakes and Bishop. Air miles, they may look close, but with the mountains, Alpine and Coleville are really separated from the communities to the south on Hwy 395. Alpine and Coleville dovetail nicely with Verzon's small footprint in Nevada, covering an area on the south and west with California, and just south of AT&T's Nevada Bell footprint in Carson City.
Frontier already serves exchanges adjacent to Verizon's exchanges in Nevada.
In far eastern Riverside, San Bernardino, and the very northern corner of Imperial County, again, the Verizon exchanges are remote from Verizon's exchanges in the Palm Springs/Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage/Cathedral City/La Quinta/Indio areas.
Although this area is not as remote as Alpine and Mono counties, nonetheless, Verizon already has exchange service bordering these communities across the river in Arizona, such as Parker and Ehrenberg. (Lake Havasu City is not served by Verizon). Frontier serves exchanges that are next to some (but not all) the Verizon exchanges in Arizona.
I can tell you that Verizon for many years has wanted to leave Arizona (just too few lines, no growth potential, the costs of regulatory compliance outweigh the returns from regulated services, etc.), but Verizon has never really found the right buyer, and needed to sell the California exchanges along with Arizona, as they really are one central plant.
I do know that Blythe has DSL, but none of the exchanges has Fios. Verizon has not really put much of any significant investment in the operations in those areas.
Also, all of the areas that Verizon is selling in California are not only former GTE, but former Contel. In fact, it took over four years after GTE acquired Contel that GTE and Contel were allowed to merge in California, and by association in Arizona and Nevada.
The Arizona and Nevada exchanges have always operated as Verizon California and prior to that as GTE California.
Here are the exchanges that will be going to Frontier:
Markeleeville/Woodfords (Alpine County): 530-694
Blythe (Riverside County): 760-921, 760-922
Coleville: (Mono County): 530-495
Earp (San Bernardino County): 760-664, 760-665
Havasu Lake (San Bernardino County): 760-858
Palo Verde (Imperial County): 760-854 (not to be confused with Rancho Palos Verde near Los Angeles)
Parker Dam (San Bernardino County): 760-663 | |
| |
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Actually, VZ itself was formed by a merger of Bell Atlantic (which had already acquired NYNEX) and GTE. The ILECs which formed the core of the Original Verizon were (northern to southern) New England Telephone (with the exception of SNET, which was never part of AT&T), New York Telephone, New Jersey Bell, Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond State Telephone, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone of Maryland (and, prior to that, Maryland Telephone), Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone of the District of Columbia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone of Virginia, and Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone of West Virginia.
The major inspiration for the formation of VZ had nothing to do with the future of local (or even long-distance) calls, but mostly to do with the Greater New York City Local Access Telecommunications Area. It is the largest LATA by area in the United States, and also one of the few that included multiple ILECs. Tthe merger talks started over straightening out rates for intra-LATA calls. | |
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| It's not so much that the areas are rural What really gets me is that Verizon is trying to get rid of areas that aren't really that rural ( Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles and Inland Empire). Sure, there are some low density areas here and there, but those are three large metro areas to just toss away. Weird. | |
| | Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
·Verizon Online DSL
·DIRECTV
2 edits | Re: It's not so much that the areas are rural My understanding(West Coast, please correct me if needed):
California--Only getting rid of some rural areas in extreme NW corner of state(Crescent City, Klamath area), and maybe some small territory bordering Nevada and Arizona. All other California Verizon (including LA and Inland Empire) kept by Verizon.
Washington--dumping rural areas and suburban Seattle areas. No more Washington Verizon landlines or FiOS, all to transfer over to Frontier.
Oregon--dumping rural areas and suburban Portland areas. No more Oregon Verizon landlines or FiOS, all to transfer over to Frontier. | |
| | | 
darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR | Re: It's not so much that the areas are rural Yes.
And the reason for dumping Seattle and Portland areas are that they're not profitable enough. | |
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Hmmm. That sounds like it is something they would do. Eh, I think it is unfortunate. | |
|
Anon
@wildblue.net | AT&T Counter? Looks like AT&T is opening a new front on Verizon regarding service/coverage. Doesn't really come close to the damage done by the map lawsuit but looks for all the world like a counter punch no matter how effective. | |
| | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | No free lunch. Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch. Verizon stock is going down; it is a private business and MUST make money or you will see a tax payer bail out that will make GM's chump change. | |
| 
littlnet
Premium
join:2006-12-05
Gladewater, TX
1 edit | Rural America I live in Galdewater Texas population of 6078 less the 5k feet from central office with no dsl in town. I wonder when they will sell my area? | |
| Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
| The Encounter At Fairpoint Isn't Going Well. Now, Frontier has to try and provide Indiana, Oregon and Washington with a TV service to replace what we are currently getting with Verizon FIOS.  What we have now from FIOS far and away beats the competition.
So, will they offer as many channels as we now get? Or, even come close?
Will they even try to offer us the kind of outstanding Video On Demand, the Multiroom DVR, and other things we love about FIOS TV?
Or, will we be left with less than what the competition offers? We left Comcast because we were dissatisfied with the service and satelite is affected by rain fade, storms, sunspots (and maybe photon torpedoes).
Perhaps Frontier can pull it off, but right now it seems like a long shot.
I just hope we don't end up falling into the quagmire of the deal or finding ourselves adrift in the final Frontier.
Mark F | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| puzzled, this is an opportunity This is an opportunity of epic proportions, the time is NOW to get smaller companies and/or municipal governments involved with getting next generation broadband out to the masses. You can not look to big corporations as saviors. Verizon has much to many legacy costs to do this effectively. Just keep in mind, should it get done, I do not want Verizon to come-a-calling to buy the business back-- I want a 50 year BAN ON ANY TELCO OR CABLECO such as the big 3 purchasing the company &/or customers! There are also opportunities in parts of major metro areas that Verizon now puts on the back burner (Boston for one) where smaller companies such as RCN would be stupid not to begin competing on bottom line price and upgrade to docsis 3.0.
Fairpoint and Frontier were doomed companies to start because they accepted massive debt to revenue ratios that would make $5/gallon gasoline look like a gift from god. Start fresh, new and debt free... then invest in markets Verizon sends to the curb-- not that rusty old copper, which doesn't even have enough capacity going to the to the region if everyone picked up their phone and tried to dial at the same time. | |
| | | |
|
|
Verizon forgets the history of how Rural America was wired.