stories about: "verizon"

Unions Want Verizon Investigated For Neglecting Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Networks, But Nobody Cares

from the ill-communication dept

Thu, Sep 10th 2015 3:14am — Karl Bode

Labor unions would like it very much if somebody would investigate Verizon for its neglect of the company's aging DSL lines. As we've noted previously, both AT&T and Verizon are busy trying to walk away from aging DSL lines they no longer want to focus instead on profitable (read: usage capped) wireless. The problem historically has been that both companies have received billions in tax breaks and subsidies to not only build and support DSL, but to upgrade those lines to fiber. Instead, in case after case, we've shown how Verizon simply took the money and then convinced state lawmakers to forget about the obligation.

Last week, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) wrote letters to six state regulatory agencies and the FCC, urging somebody to launch an investigation into Verizon's "neglect" of its DSL customers. According to the CWA, Verizon's own filings suggest the telco spent "just" $200 million to maintain its copper network in eleven states and DC over the last seven years. Basically, argues the union, Verizon DSL customers pay an arm and a leg for barely-adequate service Verizon can't be bothered to maintain (or repair very quickly when it breaks) because they no longer care about these users:

"Across the Verizon landline footprint, residential and single-line business customers pay between $300 and $370 a year for basic voice service and about $400 a year for DSL service. Even using our conservative calculations, Verizon spends less than one percent of the rate it charges for basic voice service and less than half a percent of the rate it charges for a voice/DSL bundled service on the upkeep of its copper network."

And while the CWA is only looking after its own interests here (it's currently negotiating a new contract and is using community angst for leverage), the union is absolutely correct. For years, Verizon has been literally trying to drive these paying customers away with the clever one-two punch of apathy and rate hikes. Elsewhere, Verizon employees have been complaining for years that they aren't given the tools necessary to do their jobs in these unwanted areas. Classier still, Verizon has consistently been using natural disasters like Sandy as cover, simply refusing to repair storm-damaged customers, telling them wireless service (usually very expensive if it's even available) will have to be good enough.

Basically, Verizon's letting millions of DSL users rot on the vine. If these users don't flee on their own accord, Verizon ultimately sells them to a rotating crop of ~~sucker~~ smaller telcos with disproportional appetites and negligible talent for acquisitions, who (usually thanks to complicated Reverse Morris Trust deals) take on so much debt in the transactions that they won't be able to upgrade these lines for years to come (and in several instances have stumbled into bankruptcy).

Here's the thing the CWA doesn't get: nobody in state or federal government cares about any of this. Nobody cares that Verizon promised both Pennslyvania and New Jersey symmetrical fiber for all in exchange for subsidies and tax cuts, then walked away from the promises. Nobody in state or federal government cares that Verizon promised to deploy fiber to all of New York City in exchange for a lucrative franchise agreement, only to balk at the obligation. Sure, local communities care that Verizon has a long, rich history of ripping off taxpayers and leaving work unfinished, but both the federal and state governments have shown repeatedly, consistently and indisputably that they really couldn't care less about Verizon's penchant for fraud.

And here's the rub: even if you were to see a significant audit and investigation of Verizon, in many instances you'd technically find that the telco adhered to the law. And that's quite often because companies like AT&T and Verizon have so much political power they're literally able to change the law after the fact (much like they did when their role in wholesale NSA spying was revealed). Verizon convinced both Pennsylvania and New Jersey to simply look the other way when Verizon took state taxpayers for a ride, and now Verizon's kindly asking many states to look the other way while it neglects millions of taxpayer-subsidized DSL lines. And, loyal to the last, state and federal government are happy to oblige.

Filed Under: broadband, dsl, fiber, investment, labor unions, taxpayers, unions, wireless
Companies: verizon

35 Comments

Verizon Quietly Backs Off Throttling 'Unlimited' Wireless Customers, But Only After It No Longer Matters

Wireless

from the limited-unlimited dept

Tue, Aug 18th 2015 5:04am — Karl Bode

In July of 2011, Verizon announced it would no longer offer its wireless users unlimited data plans, and instead began pushing more expensive and capped shared data plans (complete with shiny $15 per gigabyte overage fees!). While Verizon did grandfather existing unlimited customers, like AT&T, it immediately began waging a quiet war on these users, throttling these purportedly "unlimited" connections to try and drive these users toward pricier metered options.

In Verizon's case, the company started by throttling unlimited customers on its 3G network. When Verizon Wireless announced in 2014 it was going to start applying these "network optimization" practices to its LTE 4G network, the company received a surprise wrist slap by FCC boss Tom Wheeler, who warned the company that he saw through its use of congestion to drive revenue:

"Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology."

As we frequently note, phantom network congestion has long been a useful bogeyman to defend predatory or otherwise anti-competitive behavior in telecom. In Verizon's case, the company responded to the FCC by effectively claiming that everybody was doing it, something that didn't sit well with Wheeler in a follow up warning to the company just about a year ago:

"'All the kids do it' was never something that worked with me when I was growing up and it didn’t work with my kids,” Wheeler told reporters on Friday. Wheeler said that response wasn’t good enough to calm his concerns that the company was trying to milk users for more profit. "My concern in this instance is that it is moving from engineering and technological issues into business issues,” he said.

Verizon ultimately decided to scrap its plans to throttle unlimited LTE users, and the FCC proceeded to pass tougher new net neutrality rules in February of this year. AT&T, in contrast, tried to push its luck, and continued throttling unlimited users until it received a $100 million FCC fine (which AT&T is still fighting) and was socked with an FTC lawsuit for false advertising (which AT&T is also still fighting). Verizon, meanwhile, quietly continued throttling its unlimited 3G users -- until only just last week. Verizon "announced" the changes in a bit of fine print on the Verizon website:

"Beginning in 2011," it reads, "to optimize our network, we managed data connection speeds for a small subset of customers — those who are in the top 5% of data users and have 3G devices on unlimited data plans — and only in places and at times when the network was experiencing high demand. We discontinued this practice in June, 2015."

And by "optimize its network," Verizon means "optimize its revenues." In speaking to the Washington Post, Verizon claims this was just a run of the mill business decision, made because it impacted so few customers:

"We make business decisions all the time," Verizon said in a statement to the Post. "Because it was such a small subset of customers who were affected [by the 3G throttling], we made the call to discontinue even a limited approach to managing data connection speeds."

Right, well, it's only now such a small subset of customers because Verizon drove them all to metered, LTE plans already. But basically, Verizon was allowed for four years to advertise a product falsely as "unlimited," and to use network congestion as bogus justification for driving its users to more expensive plans -- with little more than a wrist slap. With the net neutrality rules now in effect (you know, the ones that were supposed to have destroyed the Internet by now) there's some basic protections in place for consumers moving forward.

But with AT&T and Verizon's history of outright fraud and misleading consumers, and network gear getting ever more sophisticated, enforcement is going to require that the FCC remain uncharacteristically tough and attentive. And that's no given; as noted recently usage caps similarly use the congestion bogeyman to drive revenue and raise consumer rates, but the FCC has remained notably mute on the subject.

Filed Under: 3g, fcc, throttling, unlimited
Companies: verizon

11 Comments

Verizon Thinks It's A Good Idea To Mock New Jersey Taxpayers After Ripping Them Off For Years

Broadband

from the so-long-suckers dept

Wed, Aug 12th 2015 5:16am — Karl Bode

We've noted a few times how Verizon has a rich history of taking taxpayer money, subsidies and tax breaks, then promising fiber deployment that never occurs. When it then comes time for local municipalities to hold the telco's feet to the fire, campaign contributions ensure any investigation is short lived. It happened in Pennsylvania, it happened in New York City, and it recently happened in New Jersey, when state officials let Verizon off the hook for a 1993 promise to evenly deploy fiber across the state in exchange for billions in benefits.

Shortly after state officials let Verizon walk away from its obligations, they also granted Verizon exemption from regulations requiring it continue servicing DSL customers whose lines were paid for in large part thanks to billions in subsidies. As we've noted, companies like AT&T and Verizon are hanging up on customers they don't want to upgrade, and forcing them instead to notably more expensive and capped wireless services. Many customers would prefer Verizon maintain or upgrade their fixed-line broadband connections, since they've paid an arm and a leg for them.

About fifty annoyed municipalities have now formed an alliance aimed at holding Verizon's feet to the fire. Collectively, they're trying to explore ways to hold Verizon accountable, require it to deliver promised upgrades, or at the very least maintain existing DSL lines until something better comes along. Verizon's response? To mock these people as Luddites:"But Verizon New Jersey spokesman Lee Gierczynski has called this "misplaced fear" resulting from "misinformation and misunderstanding about copper networks, fiber networks and the reliability of those networks." "This is a classic example of how some people fear new technology so they reactively reject it instead of accepting it, no matter how irrational that fear may be," Gierczynski said.
Except that's not what's happening here at all. People aren't angry because they're afraid of fiber upgrades, because the majority aren't getting those upgrades. They're angry because Verizon's trying to shovel them to "good enough" wireless service with low caps and steep $15 per gigabyte overage fees. Like AT&T, Verizon would have you believe that having your less expensive, unlimited DSL line replaced by a hugely expensive LTE connection (you may not even be able to get) is a step into the Utopian telecom future. Verizon's spokesman shows just how tone deaf the company is by then suggesting these folks should be mocked:

"He added: "I think people are going to look back and laugh at people ... just like who were a part of the Anti-Digit Dialing League."

Of course what people are actually going to look back on and laugh (or cry) at is Verizon's ability to take billions in subsidies, do little to nothing with it, convince regulators to turn the other cheek to outright theft, then mock annoyed consumers when they try to complain.

Filed Under: broadband, innovation, new jersey, subsidies
Companies: verizon

23 Comments

Verizon App Lets Non-Unionized Workers Record, Report Unionized Labor

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the if-you-see-something-say-something dept

Tue, Aug 4th 2015 2:49pm — Karl Bode

There's a number of reasons Verizon is slowly exiting the fixed-line broadband business and focusing on wireless. One, wireless is notably less regulated than Verizon's aging copper lines, which are saddled with "cumbersome" requirements that they keep these services (since they were largely paid for by taxpayer subsidies) active for folks like your grandma. Wireless is also far less unionized, with around 2% or less of Verizon's 38,000 unionized workers employed on the wireless side. Since the data is usage-capped, wireless also has huge profit growth potential as Internet video explodes on mobile networks.

So hanging up on fixed-line assets makes business sense and is something the company has been working hard at, even if, as its treatment of Hurricane Sandy victims illustrated, this isn't always done with much tact or honesty.

Verizon's currently engaged in contract negotiations with the company's 38,000 unionized workers at the CWA and IBEW, whose contracts expired August first. Negotiations haven't been going so well, with the CWA threatening to strike and Verizon busily training 15,000 replacement workers should that happen (though, even with the contract expiring, the parties have agreed to keep negotiating without a strike for now). But Verizon's also taking some other interesting precautions. The company is giving non-unionized workers an app in the hopes that they'll record union workers engaged in bad behavior. Verizon says this isn't to collect useful dirt on union employees, but to protect the company's infrastructure:

"Amy Seifer, Verizon associate general counsel for labor and employment, told RCR Wireless News, “The app serves three primary purposes: the first is a means for our management employees to report or document an unsafe situation, unlawful act, or violation of our code of conduct, and it will also be used by managers who have been assigned to these union positions for the duration of the strike to ask questions about installations or repairs they are handling. It also provides a means for our employees to submit suggestions on process improvements."

In the age of everyone recording everyone else, it's not too surprising that Verizon wants to keep a closer eye on union workers. But curiously Verizon's interpretation of what can and can't be recorded is, you'll be shocked to learn, not exactly equitable. According to Verizon's worker code of conduct (pdf), these union workers being recorded technically can't record Verizon or these other non-unionized employees:

"1.8.2 Use of Recording Devices

In many jurisdictions, use of recording devices without the consent of both parties is unlawful. Unless you are participating in an approved observation program or you have obtained prior approval from Security or the Legal Department, you may not record, photograph, or videotape another employee while the employee is at work or engaged in business activities or access another employee’s systems, records or equipment without that employee’s knowledge and approval. In addition, unless you receive prior approval from the Legal Department, you may never record, photograph or videotape any customer, business provider or competitor without that person’s knowledge and approval."

Apparently, apps that let non-unionized employees track, monitor and report on unionized workers would be one such "approved observation program." Union workers, should they strike next week, apparently won't be enjoying the same privilege.

Filed Under: broadband, installation, monitoring, unions
Companies: cwa, ibew, verizon

11 Comments

New York City Decides To Actually Pay Attention To Its Verizon Contracts After Getting Ripped Off On FiOS Deal

Broadband

from the novel-ideas dept

Tue, Jul 28th 2015 3:41pm — Karl Bode

New York City has decided to actually pay attention to city money paid to Verizon after city officials discovered Verizon's broadband-related-promises don't always hold up to scrutiny. As recently noted, a city audit found that Verizon's 2008 promise to wire the entire city with FiOS fiber broadband by 2014 has only been half completed, the telco using loopholes in the language to argue that getting fiber relatively close to many apartment buildings was good enough. The audit also found Verizon was withholding FiOS from some buildings unless landlords promised broadband exclusivity, something that the FCC supposedly outlawed in 2007.

Basically, Verizon did what Verizon's been doing for the better part of a generation now: getting special perks, subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for promises it has absolutely no intention of actually keeping. Former city leaders likely knew this; the 2008 deal was hashed out behind closed doors with then Mayor Mike Bloomberg's office with little to no serious public input.

Moving forward the city appears to have come up with a novel idea, more closely monitoring Verizon's other business relationships with the city:

"In a meeting at the end of June, Mayor Bill de Blasio told commissioners and agency heads they must inform the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications of all major contract negotiations with Verizon and other service providers...The de Blasio administration's new protocol has been described by insiders as an attempt to keep Verizon from continuing with business as usual while failing to make good on its FiOS franchise commitments—or even acknowledging the shortcomings of its FiOS rollout."

Yes, that's right, Verizon has yet to even admit it failed in any way, making the city's attempt to hold Verizon accountable rather difficult. What makes it even more difficult is that Verizon's likely just adhering to an agreement its own lawyers intentionally stuffed with loopholes, ranging from clever language regarding homes "passed" with fiber versus homes "served," to unrealistic provisions allowing Verizon to wiggle or buy its way out of obligations if certain TV and broadband uptake marks weren't reached.

Of course reporters at the time urged the city to have a more transparent public negotiations with Verizon to avoid these kinds of caveats and were ignored. Perhaps next time the city can be bothered to heed those warnings, and other cities can use this experience as (yet another) cautionary tale when dealing with Verizon.

Filed Under: contracts, fiber, fios, new york, nyc
Companies: verizon

Verizon Support Wants You To Know That Twitter Is A Perfectly Secure Way To Send Them Your Social Security Number

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the you-need-better-support-reps dept

Tue, Jul 21st 2015 6:15am — Karl Bode

Hoping to have an errant charge resolved, O'Reilly Media author Jonathan Zdziarski recently reached out to Verizon Wireless on Twitter. While Twitter support can help put a friendly face to a massive, often-times unwieldy conglomerate, anyone that has actually interacted with one of these support agents has likely found the quality of these interactions to be decidedly hit or miss. In Zdziarski's case, the Verizon Wireless support agent in question thought it would be perfectly acceptable for him to prove his identity over Twitter, since the platform is such a "secure means of communication":

Seriously. This just happened. pic.twitter.com/odM80wMO4r
— Jonathan Zdziarski (@JZdziarski) July 15, 2015

Except for the fact that's not remotely true. Back in late 2013 in the wake of reports on the NSA's ballooning skulduggery, Twitter claimed they'd start encrypting direct messages, though by 2014 that initiative appears to have been forgotten. As such, what Verizon's calling a "secure means of communication" is about as secure as a safe made out of paper mache and tin foil. When pressed about this lack of secure transit for personal data, Zdziarski was apparently informed that everything was ok, because "most users are ok with it":

Verizon defended asking social security numbers over Twitter "because most customers are OK with it": teaching customers to become victims.
— Jonathan Zdziarski (@JZdziarski) July 16, 2015

Of course "most users" don't know a gigabit from a garrote, so it's not entirely clear that "most people aren't bright enough to know this isn't a good idea" should be used as a security standard moving forward.

Filed Under: customer support, jonathan zdziarski, security
Companies: verizon

29 Comments

How States Are Fighting To Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband

Broadband

from the lobbying-dollars-at-work dept

Thu, Jul 2nd 2015 7:25am — Leticia Miranda, ProPublica

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission voted to ease the way for cities to become Internet service providers. So-called municipal broadband is already a reality in a few towns, often providing Internet access and faster service to rural communities that cable companies don't serve.

The cable and telecommunications industry have long lobbied against city-run broadband, arguing that taxpayer money should not fund potential competitors to private companies.

The telecom companies have what may seem like an unlikely ally: states. Roughly 20 states have restrictions against municipal broadband.

And the attorneys general in North Carolina and Tennessee have recently filed lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the FCC and block towns in these states from expanding publicly funded Internet service.

North Carolina's attorney general argued in a suit filed in May that the "FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions." Tennessee's attorney general filed a similar suit in March.

Tennessee has hired one of the country's largest telecom lobbying and law firms, Wiley Rein, to represent the state in its suit. The firm, founded by a former FCC chairman, has represented AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, among others.

James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, said it is not unusual for attorneys general to seek outside counsel for specialized cases that they view as a priority.

Asked about the suit, the Tennessee attorney general's office told ProPublica, "This is a question of the state's sovereign ability to define the role of its local governmental units." North Carolina Attorney General's office said in a statement that the "legal defense of state laws by the Attorney General's office is a statutory requirement."

As the New York Times detailed last year, state attorneys general have become a major target of corporate lobbyists and contributors including AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile.

North Carolina is no exception. The state's Attorney General Roy Cooper received roughly $35,000 from the telecommunications industry in his 2012 run for office. Only the state's retail industry gave more.

The donations are just a small part of contributions the industry has made in the states. In North Carolina's 2014 elections, the telecommunications industry gave a combined $870,000 to candidates in both parties, which made it one of the top industries to contribute that year. Candidates in Tennessee received nearly $921,000 from AT&T and other industry players in 2014.

The FCC's decision came after two towns – City of Wilson in North Carolina and Chattanooga in Tennessee – appealed to the agency to be able to expand their networks.

The vote has rattled some companies. In a government filing earlier this year, Comcast cited the FCC's decision as a risk to the company's business: "Any changes to the regulatory framework applicable to any of our services or businesses could have a negative impact on our businesses and results of operations."

If the court upholds the FCC's authority to preempt restrictions in North Carolina and Tennessee, it may embolden other cities to file petitions with the agency, according to lawyer Jim Baller, who represents Wilson and the Chattanooga Electric Power Board. "A victory by the FCC would be a very welcome result for many communities across America," said Baller.

For some residents in and outside of Chattanooga, clearing the way to city-run broadband would mean the sort of faster Internet access that others might take for granted.

For 12 years, Eva VanHook, 39, of Georgetown, Tennessee, lived with a satellite broadband connection so slow that she'd read a book while waiting for a web page to load. In order for her son to access online materials for his school assignments, she'd drive him 12 miles to their church parking lot, where he could access faster WiFi.

Charter, the local Internet service provider, declined several requests by her husband to build lines out to her home. Only last month did Charter connect her home to the Internet. "Even the possibility to jump on [the local utility's] gigabit network would blow our minds right now," VanHook said. "There is nothing faster than Chattanooga. Just through meeting them and hearing them speak and having them understand what's going on, that's the kind of place I want to do business."

Republished from ProPublica.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, isps, lobbying, municipal broadband, north carolina, states, tennessee
Companies: at&t, verizon, wiley rein

23 Comments

Audit Reveals Verizon Tried To Corner NYC Broadband Market By Striking Exclusive Landlord Deals

Broadband

from the you-knew-I-was-a-snake-when-you-picked-me-up dept

Wed, Jul 1st 2015 10:38am — Karl Bode

As we recently noted, New York City only just woke up to the fact that the lucrative 2008 Verizon franchise deal the city thought would bring fiber broadband to 100% of all five boroughs, has only resulted in Verizon cherry picking about half of the city's residents. Of course as we pointed out, if the city had actually bothered to read the closed-door agreement struck with former Mayor Mike Bloomberg (or listened to a few local reporters at the time), leaders could have noticed at any time that it contains oodles of loopholes allowing Verizon to wiggle over, under and around most of the obligations contained therein.

While most people know by now that taking subsidies and tax breaks for fiber that never gets delivered is Verizon's MO in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (ok, well everywhere), the city only just appears to be realizing the scope of Verizon's shenanigans. In addition to discovering that Verizon failed its build out obligations, analysis of the NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications' audit (pdf) indicates that Verizon also tried to cajole landlords into exclusivity deals that may violate FCC rules:

"[T]wo of the interviewees’ statements supported the first property manager’s statement that Verizon was not completing NSIs because they wanted exclusive agreements for certain buildings before completion of the NSI," according to the audit report. "For example, one property manager from a well-known firm complained that Verizon would not complete the NSI at a building on Sutton Place unless 100 percent of the apartment dwellers committed to Verizon FiOS. This property manager also said only two of the eleven multiple dwelling properties he managed had Verizon FiOS and that installations took anywhere from six months to two years."

So yeah, in addition to pretending that homes "passed" with fiber were "served," Verizon actually refused to wire a lot of properties unless everybody in the building could be forced to only exclusively use Verizon services. This is something the FCC banned in a 2007 order (pdf) that's subsequently been held up during court challenges by cable providers. Verizon has long denied that it does this; in fact the telco has consistently tried to claim that landlords are solely to blame for the company's uneven deployment. This go-round, Verizon is blaming the city's findings on "miscommunication" (when it hasn't tried to dismiss the findings entirely as the unsubstantiated rabble rousing of labor unions).

But that's not all. In the week after the city's audit was made public, a number of competitors have come forward to complain that Verizon's been blocking access to key city infrastructure as well. In other words, Verizon's refusing to serve millions of people, but making it impossible for anyone else to do so either. If you've followed the municipal broadband debate, that's effectively the same logic the mega-ISPs have displayed on a national level, and this kind of behavior by incumbent ISPs (especially if you watched the ILEC/CLEC wars of the late 90s and early aughts) is a major contributor to the nation's utterly mediocre rankings in most broadband metrics.

Having watched telco lawyers get away with this stuff for the better part of fifteen years, it's clear to me few municipal leaders are actually reading the franchise agreements that they sign, and fewer still seem familiar with the laundry list of childhood fables warning them about just these kinds of business transactions.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, exclusive deals, landlords, nyc
Companies: verizon

No, We Still Can't Definitively Prove Your ISP Is Slowing Netflix Traffic To Make An Extra Buck

Broadband

from the network-shenanigans dept

Wed, Jun 24th 2015 1:35pm — Karl Bode

While filing a net neutrality complaint is now easier than ever, actually identifying violations may not be. In the new age of interconnection, usage caps, overages, and pay-to-play zero rating deals, less technical users simply may not understand when they're being screwed by their ISP, as these violations aren't nearly as ham-fistedly obvious as outright blocking or throttling of services. That's why the Open Technology Institute’s MLAB recently introduced the Internet health test, which runs user connections through a bevy of speed and performance tests to determine whether or not ISPs are engaged in any shenanigans.

Last October, MLAB released a study (pdf) that strongly supported Netflix, Level3 and Cogent's claims that ISPs were intentionally letting peering points to transit operators saturate to try and force companies like Netflix to begin paying for direct interconnection. In short, neutrality advocates believe ISPs had moved net neutrality to the edge of the network, using interconnection to grab the pound of flesh from content companies they've long stated was their end goal.

The problem is both sides of the equation (whether that's Netflix or AT&T) keep most of their data on interconnection (and the deals they strike) private for competitive reasons, meaning that while signs (and thirty years of history) pointed to ISP skulduggery, actually proving it is difficult. It's apparently becoming less difficult with the new consumer connection data being collected by MLAB, which the Guardian this week claimed proves big ISPs are intentionally degrading network performance across some networks:

"The study, conducted by internet activists BattlefortheNet, looked at the results from 300,000 internet users and found significant degradations on the networks of the five largest internet service providers (ISPs), representing 75% of all wireline households across the US...In Atlanta, for example, Comcast provided hourly median download speeds over a CDN called GTT of 21.4 megabits per second at 7pm throughout the month of May. AT&T provided speeds over the same network of ⅕ of a megabit per second. When a network sends more than twice the traffic it receives, that network is required by AT&T to pay for the privilege."

This is, consumer advocate group Free Press claims, proof positive that ISPs are up to no good:

"For too long, internet access providers and their lobbyists have characterized net neutrality protections as a solution in search of a problem,” said Karr. “Data compiled using the Internet Health Test show us otherwise – that there is widespread and systemic abuse across the network. The irony is that this trove of evidence is becoming public just as many in Congress are trying to strip away the open internet protections that would prevent such bad behavior."

The problem? While the Guardian report references a "new study," no study has actually been released that I could find (MLAB apparently just shared some selective data with The Guardian). That brings us back to the fact that the biggest problem here continues to be a lack of transparency on the part of all the players involved. But it's pretty hard to claim a "study" proves much of anything when there's no actual study, suggesting some over-eagerness on the parts of consumer advocates here.

Shortly after the Guardian piece MLABS did post a blog entry that sheds a little more light on the data they're collecting, but it's worth noting that while MLAB engineers are confident in saying these slowdowns are due to business choices and not network capacity, they're not yet willing to definitively state why some transit routes suffer more than others:

"It is important to note that while we are able to observe and record these episodes of performance degradation, nothing in the data allows us to draw conclusions about who is responsible for the performance degradation. We leave determining the underlying cause of the degradation to others, and focus solely on the data, which tells us about consumer conditions irrespective of cause."

If you're interested, all the data MLAB is collecting has been released publicly and is available through the telescope program, which can be used to pull down and analyze subsets of the data.

Still, despite some of the breathless rhetoric in the Guardian piece neutrality advocates still haven't obtained the AT&T lawyer proof silver bullet that indisputably proves large ISPs have been up to no good. I'm not entirely sure this can even be accomplished without access to raw, confidential ISP data and internal correspondence that may or may not even exist (how do you "prove" Verizon intentionally isn't upgrading a port?). Sure, most people can study AT&T and Verizon's behavior over the last thirty years and conclude that yes, this sort of thing would certainly be in their jackassery wheelhouse, but proving it is kind of important if you want these kinds of claims to be taken seriously.

Still, the fact that people are crunching and closely analyzing the data, combined with the new and novel threat of a regulator that's not asleep at the wheel, appears to have many of these companies magically and suddenly getting along famously. This suggests, contrary to broadband industry doomsday prognostications, that the net neutrality rules are having a positive impact on consumers, business interests, and the Internet at large.

Filed Under: broadband, interconnection, isps, net neutrality, studies, throttling, transparency
Companies: at&t, cogent, comcast, level3, m-lab, netflix, time warner cable, verizon

8 Comments

Eight Years Later, New York City Officials Wake Up To Verizon's Fiber Broadband Bluff

Broadband

from the fine-print dept

Tue, Jun 23rd 2015 8:11am — Karl Bode

Like Silicon Valley, New York City purports to be a bastion for emerging technology, yet, just like Silicon Valley, it suffers from a pitiful lack of broadband options and competition. In New York, Time Warner Cable enjoys notable market dominance, with either spotty Verizon FiOS or DSL coverage providing the barest semblance of real market competition for the cable giant. It wasn't supposed to be this way: in 2008 Verizon struck a closed-door franchise agreement with then NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, one which Verizon strongly implied would result in 100% FiOS coverage for all five boroughs of the city by the end of 2014.

The agreement, both Bloomberg and Verizon tried to proclaim at the time, would mean uniform fiber for the whole city, putting an end to the broadband "cherry picking" that plagued franchise agreements of years past:

"Our investment in the City is historic, which is reflected in the citywide nature of our plan," (Verizon's Monica) Azare said. "When our fiber deployment project is completed it will reach to each and every borough, neighborhood, boulevard, avenue and street, without regard to the demographics of a particular area. More importantly, City residents will be able to take advantage of the power of fiber optics delivered straight to their doors."

2014 has of course come and gone, and most estimates peg New York City FiOS penetration at somewhere between 45 and 55%, with most of the city's least affluent areas left in the broadband dark. Despite plenty of warning signs from reporters at the time, and the fact that city lawyers could have read the agreement at any time, New York City officials are only just starting to realize that the deal allowed Verizon ample room to wiggle around and under most of the uniform deployment obligations.

A new city report (pdf) released last week has found, shockingly, that Verizon went right ahead and used these loopholes to cherry pick only select neighborhoods, just as the company had intended. The biggest trick Verizon used to bluff its way past obligations was by bringing fiber somewhere close to many residences (as in buried in the street one block over), then declaring that these users could get fiber. Of course when the city began to look, they found Verizon refused to finish the job:

"As 2014 progressed, and Verizon’s (supposed) build-out approached 100 percent, DoITT began to receive anecdotal evidence, largely in the form of consumer complaints, suggesting that Verizon was simultaneously taking credit for “passing” households and declining to accept orders for nonstandard service installations from those households. The anecdotal evidence, in combination with discussions of the particular households involved with Verizon personnel, led DoITT to be concerned that these anecdotes did not reflect occasional irregularities, but possibly broader failures by Verizon to fulfill the obligations it undertook in the 2008 franchise agreement."

Possibly! Again, this was all pretty much spelled out in the franchise agreement Bloomberg's office signed with Verizon years earlier. As we've often covered, Verizon also has a long, proud, history of similar shenanigans in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, getting significant tax breaks and subsidies in exchange for fiber optic service that never winds up getting deployed. Verizon, as you might expect, denies that it in any way failed the city, and blames difficult city landlords for its failure to deliver promised fiber to roughly half the city:

"We indeed have met the requirement to install fiber optics through all five boroughs," a Verizon spokesperson told Ars. "Our $3.5 billion investment and the 15,000 miles of fiber we have built have given New Yorkers added choices and a robust set of advanced, reliable, and resilient services. The challenge we have is gaining access to properties which of course would expand availability. We look forward to working with the City to seek solutions to this issue."

Verizon had been trying to blame crotchety landlords for these expected FiOS coverage gaps for some time, and while there certainly are some difficult building managers, reporters have found in many of these instances that Verizon incompetence was actually to blame. In some instances, Verizon was accused of telling building owners that it would only actually connect buildings to the FiOS network if every resident in the building was required to get service through Verizon and nobody else.

So, the better part of a decade later New York City officials are annoyed at the sweetheart deal their predecessors signed, and insist that they'll be holding Verizon's feet to the fire:

"Through a thorough and comprehensive audit, we have determined that Verizon substantially failed to meet its commitment to the people of New York City,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio..."What the audit reveals is an alarming failure on the part of Verizon to deliver on its franchise agreement with the City,” said Counsel to the Mayor Maya Wiley. “Verizon must make good on its commitment and do so with transparency, accountability and better service delivery going forward. New Yorkers deserve no less."

The agreement says the city "may "seek and/or pursue money damages" if Verizon fails to live up to its side of the agreement, but the loophole-filled wording of the contract will likely make that impossible. If Verizon's business history is any indication, what will actually happen is the company's lawyers will keep the bureaucratic wheels spinning indefinitely, while the city spends another decade paying lip service to the transformative power of broadband. That New York City is at least making a stink about it is at least marginally promising; Pennsylvania and New Jersey officials threw billions of dollars at the company, let it off the hook for any and all obligations, and then just hoped nobody would notice.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fiber, fios, new york city, promises
Companies: time warner cable, verizon

20 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Friday
10:50	[UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230 (74)
10:45	Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cisco Certification Training Bundle (0)
09:32	Criss Angel Sends Ridiculous Legal Threat After Comedian Creates Parody Menu Of His Restaurant (18)
04:53	New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service (28)
Thursday
20:06	Monster Energy Buys A Brewery; Trademark Lawsuits Are Almost Sure To Follow (26)
16:34	The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs (37)
14:06	Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist (38)
12:43	New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access (32)
11:18	Pennsylvania Court Reverses Student's Expulsion Over A Snapchat Post, Reminds School Students Still Have Rights (26)
11:13	Daily Deal: Circuit Scribe: DIY Circuit Kits (0)
09:52	Senator Blumenthal Blames TikTok... Due To A Popular And Widely Championed Science Experiment Gone Wrong (38)
08:53	America's Struggling Satellite TV Companies Once Again Propose A Terrible MegaMerger (9)
Wednesday
19:43	The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action (125)
15:33	Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Knew About Deceptive Advertising Practices By A Group That Was Later Banned For Operating A Troll Farm (2018-2020) (2)
13:43	New Illinois Law Says Cops Need A Warrant To Grab Data From (Some) Third Parties (2)
12:06	The Next Techdirt Greenhouse And Event: Remembering The SOPA Fight (4)
10:50	FTC's Second Antitrust Attempt Against Facebook Gets Past The First Hurdle (7)
10:45	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 AWS Training Bundle (0)
09:34	FCC Politely Tells ISPs To Stop Abusing Covid Broadband Relief Program To Rip Off Poor People (8)
05:29	Polish Gov't Finally Admits It Deployed NSO Malware, Pretends Targeting Of Opposition Leaders Isn't Abusive (11)
Tuesday
20:00	How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright (45)
15:39	NYPD Officers Are Again Whining About Being Asked To Document Their Biased Policework (21)
13:46	Meta Sues Firm For Data Scraping; Claims That Signing Up For New Accounts After Being Banned Is Equivalent Of Hacking (17)
12:06	Chip Shortage Forces Canon To Issue Workarounds For Its Own Obnoxious DRM (27)
10:48	UK Government Apparently Hoping It Can Regulate End-To-End Encryption Out Of Existence (32)
10:43	Daily Deal: The Media Mac Bundle (0)
09:38	Now Israel Is Looking To Pass A Social Media Censorship Bill Too (2)
05:25	Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric (24)
Monday
20:49	Olive Garden At It Again Enforcing Its IP Instead Of Letting Anyone Have Some Fun With Joke NFTs (15)
15:44	Please Join Techdirt In Celebrating 'National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day!' (21)

Unions Want Verizon Investigated For Neglecting Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Networks, But Nobody Cares

from the ill-communication dept

Verizon Quietly Backs Off Throttling 'Unlimited' Wireless Customers, But Only After It No Longer Matters

from the limited-unlimited dept

Verizon Thinks It's A Good Idea To Mock New Jersey Taxpayers After Ripping Them Off For Years

from the so-long-suckers dept

Verizon App Lets Non-Unionized Workers Record, Report Unionized Labor

from the if-you-see-something-say-something dept

New York City Decides To Actually Pay Attention To Its Verizon Contracts After Getting Ripped Off On FiOS Deal

from the novel-ideas dept

Verizon Support Wants You To Know That Twitter Is A Perfectly Secure Way To Send Them Your Social Security Number

from the you-need-better-support-reps dept

How States Are Fighting To Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband

from the lobbying-dollars-at-work dept

Audit Reveals Verizon Tried To Corner NYC Broadband Market By Striking Exclusive Landlord Deals

from the you-knew-I-was-a-snake-when-you-picked-me-up dept

No, We Still Can't Definitively Prove Your ISP Is Slowing Netflix Traffic To Make An Extra Buck

from the network-shenanigans dept

Eight Years Later, New York City Officials Wake Up To Verizon's Fiber Broadband Bluff

from the fine-print dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the ill-communication dept

from the limited-unlimited dept

from the so-long-suckers dept

from the if-you-see-something-say-something dept

from the novel-ideas dept

from the you-need-better-support-reps dept

from the lobbying-dollars-at-work dept

from the you-knew-I-was-a-snake-when-you-picked-me-up dept

from the network-shenanigans dept

from the fine-print dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More