You've Already Paid $2,000 For A Fiber Connection You'll Never Get
from the money-back,-please dept
As the Baby Bells falsely complain about how people aren't paying them for the internet, or whine about how it's unfair to expect them to compete against muni-broadband, there's something important to remember. For the last decade, those same telcos have made promise after promise to local governments concerning the delivery of truly open fiber optic connections to the home. In exchange, they've been granted all sorts of privileges and rate increases by the government, costing all of us money. And where did the money go? Not towards what was promised. Bruce Kushnick, who we've written about before is now coming out with a book that details how the telcos scammed approximately $200 billion from all of us (about $2,000 per household), promising fiber to every home with symmetric 45 Mbps speeds and an open access model that would allow anyone to offer competitive internet services over that connection. This is a promise that they have not kept... though, they have kept our money. That fiber was supposed to be delivered this year (earlier in other cases), but it's not coming. The fiber that telcos are finally starting to offer is much more expensive, much slower, and locked down. In fact, after all of these promises, remember that the telcos said they wouldn't offer fiber at all, unless the FCC promised not to require them to let others offer services on it. Yet, for all of this, there's been very little outcry, or very little discussion -- and the latest moves concerning network neutrality show that the telcos are looking to take more of our money and deliver less yet again. For more details, check out Kushnick's book, $200 Billion Broadband Scandal, and think about it next time the telcos whine about government interference.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
lest we forget
expense of stockholders in firms such as GBLX
and MFNX. In the old days the crowd would have
strung them up by a rope .... im sure enough
strands of fiber would work just as well. Instead
people like Spitzer shake down Wall St and
other firms, not to give the money back, but to
fund their own office. Or worse, we end up with
Martha Stewart while investors have been fleeced
of countless billions and the management of those
companies walked and the ILCs walk away with the
spoils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lest we forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lest we forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's Martha Stewart got to do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telco lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Telco lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Telco lies
Perhaps I am just a squeaky wheel, but my connection has not gone down while I have been actively using it for over 6mo.
7mb down/ 786up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Telco lies
I'm not saying they are wrong.
I understand where you are coming from. People that know how far we have come in the last 25 years are astounded by the incredible advances that have been made. I remember being so excited about paying $200 for 16MB of RAM or my brand new 14.4kbs modem - wow it was so fast! Those days were quickly consumed by advances in technology - and forces of the open market.
The issue, however, that the original post implies is that (along the lines of demand for what we "believe we are owed" is) the increases of technology have NOT been delivered to all of us, as expected.
I'm happy with my connection: wireless, 8MB up, ~1MB down - a hell of a lot better than a 14.4kbps that prevented me from using my phone! BUT, I too am interested in getting what I pay for. Lately has been an EXTREMELY PROFITABLE time for Telcos and if they made a commitment to do something, and where paid to do so... it should be so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Telco lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait
down here they are doing their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait
Yeah, but it's slower, asymmetrical, and more expensive than promised. Not to mention that it's not open for others to offer service on.
That's NOT what they promised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait
btw a side fact with nothing to do with tech. the state just approved barber brothers construction to 6 lane airline highway from florida to bluebonnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vonage Rocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep waiting,
By the year some of the things the President talked about could even take place, like with domestic alternative fuels, most of us will be too old to drive, Huh, go figure.
FYI, fttx deployment on the docsis (cablemodem side is lackluster as well) No deployment is above 30megabits, industry-wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
what the hell is this world coming too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Covad offers services in my area up to 6.0/768 for as low as $110/month, but you still wind up sending money to the ILEC if you go that way. Surewest terminated their last fiber run in my neighborhood (in fact right across the street from me) but then decided that they were not going to allow anyone at all onto that run (so why do the run in the first place?) Satellite is a no go due to latency and the city wi-fi is going to be exactly 1.5 miles too short to reach me (once they hit that particular neighborhood of the city).
So basicly, for me to get reliable broadband services, I have to put up with a middleman (covad) who is forced to give money to the ILEC (for whom I have a burning white hot hatred) or....... I can go with crappy/no services at all.
Where exactly is this type of situation benificial to consumers and why would any group of consumers have any faith in any of the companies involved when they have had to endure a situation like this for years and years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real responsibility...
Don't bitch about ATT, SBC, Comcast, etc. They are doing what makes sense for a for-profit company. Promise the most, deliver the least.
If our elected officials don't hold their feet to the fire, we are screwed because, as these are monopolies, we cannot take our money to a competitor. Your elected officials are the only people that can break the cycle of lie and under-deliver, but that means THEY have to stop the same lies and under-delivering too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real responsibility...
Please note that it is not "municipal monopolies" which have allowed the kind of sweetheart deals and games the RBOCs have played. These companies are regulated at the state and federal levels - not the local level - and from my experience, are on very cosy terms with many of the federal authorities who regulate them before they go to work for them.
10-15 years ago, T=there were promises of updraded networks and fast connections and a whole new world of technology "if only" the FCC would grant "video-dial-tone". Then there was "if only" the "Open Video System (OVS)rule, but that was not good enough for telcos, so they wanted - and got - a wipeout of the 1996 regulations for opening their networks to new entrants at wholesale rates. (don't forget these are companies who built their plant as state-sactioned carrier-of-last-resort monopolists with that guaranteed rates of return or price-cap reguation, plus subsidies from the universal service fund (USF).
Meanwhile, SBC sold the video franchises owned by Ameritech when it bought Ameritech (incidentally reducing by another one the number of "baby bells", having already done it to Pacific Bell).
And cancelled video trials in Texas and California, including Cerritos where cable service was actually being offered.
After numerous un-kept promises about upgrading their networks "if only", and lots of chances to do video (which they - and especially SBC - blew off more than once) the newest whines are
1) others should not use our networks unless they pay for high speeds (even tho' we the customers are already paying the telcos to connect to google or amazon or yahoo or whomever at certain speeds).
2) we would like to provide video (part of the triple play) honest-to-goodness-this-time-we-mean-it BUT, we want to choose where we offer service.
In SBC's case that mean 90% of "high value" customers and 5% of "low value" customers (see their 11-12-04 Investor Update document for verification). Local Govt types are actively opposing that kind of cherry-picking and red-lining. Local cable tv franchises reqquire that everyone be served.....and any new video providers should have to do the same thing....otherwise it will be Kellor TX everywhere.....cablerates went down in the neighborhoods where Verizon deployed video....but stayed the same in areas without choice....so you will find citizens once again subsidizing cut throat price wars wherever there is not a "choice" of more than one wire-line video.
I submit that this is NOT the way to get a wired nation.....and federal/state policies which allow anything less than universal deployment of upgraded plant across the carrier of last resort footprint is just a give-away to companies that have already taken plenty of our money to spend on lobbyists and lawsuits and self-intersted rules.
But unless individual citizens starts speaking out loudly to your electeds (as happened with media ownership) , the telco juggernaut will roll over the public interest again.....the breadth of their astroturf groups and facile half-truths and enourmous lobbying machine/$$$ is breath-taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real responsibility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real responsibility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I see your point, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real responsibility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didnt know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very slanted article
Although I would agree that VZ and the rest of the telcos are no angels, I think this article is very misleading (not completely false, but not telling the whole story).
First of all, all the major telcos (VZ, AT&T, and Bell South) are all currently building a fiber optic network. In Verizon's case, we have already built fiber and have done all the back office work to sell the finished product to over 3 Million homes in the US. There are two main reasons why you dont have fiber today (if you are in a VZ territory).
1) local governments are trying to screw all the telcos and charge ridiculous franchise fees and/or make the telcos pay for unrelated local government projects. As a result VZ refuses to build in a locality without a guarantee that it can sell its products. If franchises were approved at the state or national level, and not EVERY SINGLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE COUNTRY a lot more areas would have fiber. Texas recently passed a state-wide franchise, watch how fast fiber is deployed there.
2) You might already have fiber available to you, but have never heard of it. VZ is not doing major advertisement of the fiber optic product today because it is only set up for a small fraction of its total customers. It doesnt make sense to do a national campaign for a product you cannot sell yet because you would just upset your customers.
As far as the "promises not kept" I will make these comments. Should VZ continue to offer an open network available to competitors when in the past the government let them use our network at rates less than what it costs us to maintain? Why should we spend BILLIONS to build a fiber network and then allow our competitors to use it for less than what it costs? Please keep in mind we are a FOR-PROFIT company you cant expect us to not do what is in our best interest.
As far as speeds go, VZ's fiber network is capable of speeds up to 100Mbps per second far above the 45Mbps the author quoted. At this time however we are only offering speeds up to a max of 30MB up/5MB down, which is far more than you would need to do anything imaginable on the internet today.
As Far as pricing goes, the cheapest Fiber starts at $34.95 for 5Mbps up/2Mbps down plus taxes, set up fees etc.
To learn the truth about VZ's fiber product (called Verizon FIOS) feel free to go the website and get the FACTS! www.verizonfios.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very slanted article
First of all, all the major telcos (VZ, AT&T, and Bell South) are all currently building a fiber optic network.
Indeed, as we noted. But, they're doing so in a different way than promised. Remember, your employer specifically held New Jersey hostage, saying they wouldn't build fiber unless they weren't required to open the lines -- something they had previously promised to get concessions from the gov't.
local governments are trying to screw all the telcos and charge ridiculous franchise fees and/or make the telcos pay for unrelated local government projects.
Indeed, though this is a SEPARATE issue. We've already written in the past about the importance of getting rid of pointless franchise fees. So we're on your side for that... but the franchise issue is just for TV, and totally unrelated to the rest of this argument.
Should VZ continue to offer an open network available to competitors when in the past the government let them use our network at rates less than what it costs us to maintain?
Nice spin! It's completely false, but it certainly sounds good. We've pointed to documents in the past that have shown that the real cost of each copper line was somewhere around a penny... and VZ was demanding $15 or so for it. Hard to square that with the claim they were losing money.
The point of forcing the networks to be open is that it's a natural monopoly (which is also the point of franchise agreements, but we agree those shouldn't be locally managed). There isn't any competition -- meaning you guys get to rip people off. Having an open network spurs competition.
As far as speeds go, VZ's fiber network is capable of speeds up to 100Mbps per second far above the 45Mbps the author quoted. At this time however we are only offering speeds up to a max of 30MB up/5MB down, which is far more than you would need to do anything imaginable on the internet today.
And you know how much speed we need? The amazing thing about the internet is that, for all the speed we get, new services and apps appear that make use of them. So don't tell us how much we need. Give us the speeds you promised, and then see what happens. The folks in Asia seem pretty happy with their higher speeds -- much of which they're actually using.
As Far as pricing goes, the cheapest Fiber starts at $34.95 for 5Mbps up/2Mbps down plus taxes, set up fees etc.
Again, different than what was promised.
Nice response, but the facts don't support you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fios vs. cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fios vs. cable
Uh. Yeah, every bit as fast as they claim now. However, (1) it's nowhere near as fast as they promised and (2) it's asymmetrical, rather than symetrical (as promised). Also, the original promise was to allow other service providers to offer services, which they have not done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've Already Paid $2,000 For A Fiber Connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why You Make Lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why You Make Lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Zealand
I am getting a 2 Mbit connection (soon to be upgraded to 3.5)
This is NOT fast, Totally lagged, I am sure if I sent the same message by post (aka snail mail) it would get there quicker.
I play Red Alert 2 online, it runs better on my 56k dialup connection.
We are setting up our own wireless service provider, seperate to the internet, but joined to the internet for those that pay the extra for it.
We are trying to make this lag free, we currently get a ping of 15ms from one side of our town to the other, just working on lowering that figure and expanding the network.
Broadband in New Zealand isn't worth the money to set it up, they should have used tax payers money for something better, like laying more fiber optics between each exchange instead of satalite and copper cables :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting Info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Japanese Racing Ahead @ Light Speed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Braodband is a national disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Japanese lagging behind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobile Trek
“Anything resembling anything living…..isn’t”
Kind Regards,
Douglas Rea.
douglasrea@bigpond.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]