Frontier Backs AT&T's Lawsuit To Keep Google Fiber Out Of Louisville

from the defenders-of-the-status-quo dept

Earlier this year, we noted how companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable were engaged in incessant whining about Google Fiber's planned entry into Louisville, Kentucky. More specifically, the ISPs were upset that Louisville passed "one touch make ready" fiber rules that dramatically speed up fiber deployment times by letting licensed third-party contractors move other ISPs' equipment when necessary. Such reforms generally help all ISPs by dramatically reducing the time it takes to deploy fiber infrastructure, often by as much as half a year.

The Fiber To The Home Council recently proclaimed (.doc) such reforms are a great way to streamline existing regulations and speed up fiber deployment nationwide:

"One touch make-ready policies are an effective and equitable way to reduce the disruption and inconvenience that come from work by multiple pole construction crews. One touch policies allow any communications service provider putting new attachments on a pole to perform all make-ready work that does not result in a customer outage, using contractors from a list approved by the utility pole owner. One touch is efficient because a single construction crew —a crew with enough skill and experience to be approved by the pole owner itself—is all that is needed to complete pole make-ready to deploy new broadband facilities."

AT&T traditionally loves to complain about "burdensome regulations" at any and every opportunity (even given the fact its lawyers often write state telecom law). But when said burdensome regulations defend the status quo, you'll note the company's tune changes dramatically. In Louisville, first the mega-ISPs tried to claim that their Constitutional rights were being violated. When that didn't work, AT&T filed a lawsuit claiming that such rules would only hurt consumers by disrupting existing broadband service.

Several months later and Frontier has now filed a brief in support of AT&T's lawsuit (free registration required), despite the fact that the ISP doesn't even offer broadband service in Louisville or the state of Kentucky. Frontier's obviously just worried that the menacing specter of increased competition could spread into its territories, so like AT&T, the brief tries desperately to portray one-touch-make-ready rules as a huge threat to stable service:

"The Ordinance strips the utility pole owner of the right to negotiate key terms of access that are designed to minimize disruption and delay to the consumer," Frontier says in its brief. "These terms not only protect the public, but they also safeguard the pole owner’s rights and equipment, as well as the rights and equipment of already existing attachers."

Except that's nonsense, and ISPs have a long, rich history of using utility pole regulations to try and block competition. Again, these reforms benefit everybody building networks, not just Google Fiber. We're also not talking about some random, drunk yahoo climbing utility poles to tug on expensive telecom equipment. Under the rules all parties agree to a licensed, insured third-party contractor to do the work, the installer must give ISPs notification of any scheduled work, and the work can only proceed if the installers don't get a response from the gear owner within thirty days.

Such pole attachment reforms help everybody -- except giant incumbent ISPs, who'd prefer things remain as uncompetitive as possible. AT&T's lawsuit is little more than a giant advertisement for Google Fiber, and for AT&T and Frontier's absolute terror at the possibility of actually having to compete.

Filed Under: broadband, fiber
Companies: at&t, frontier, google

Add Philadelphia To The Long List Of Cities That Think Verizon Ripped Them Off On Fiber Promises

from the rinse,-wash-repeat dept

Verizon's modus operandi has been fairly well established by now: convince state or local leaders to dole out millions in tax breaks and subsidies -- in exchange for fiber that's either only partially delivered, or not delivered at all. Given this story has repeated itself in New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York City and countless other locations, there's now a parade of communities asking somebody, anybody, to actually hold Verizon's feet to the fire. Given Verizon's political power (especially on the state level) those calls go unheeded, with Verizon lawyers consistently able to wiggle around attempts to hold the telco to account.

In Pennsylvania, the story is much the same as elsewhere. Verizon was able to convince state leaders in the '90s to dole out billions in handouts for state-wide symmetrical 45 Mbps fiber broadband. But a decade later when people finally noticed fiber was nowhere to be found, Verizon managed to convince state leaders to effectively forget about the obligation entirely. Fast forward another decade and, after striking a 2009 franchise deal with the city of Philadelphia (again promising full city deployment of its FiOS fiber broadband service) you'll be shocked to discover what happened:

"Philadelphia government officials are investigating whether Verizon has met an obligation to bring FiOS service to all residents of the city. Verizon obtained a cable franchise agreement from the city in February 2009, and the deadline to wire up all of Philadelphia passed on February 26 of this year...Philadelphia seems skeptical about whether Verizon actually met its obligation, but it is still looking for proof. The city set up a webpage asking residents to fill out a form to "tell us whether you have tried to order Verizon service but have been told by the company that service is not yet available in your neighborhood."

Traditionally, ISPs can get away with this not only because they effectively own state legislatures, but because nobody in any part of government actually bothers to audit company deployment promises. What passes as an audit generally involves the ISP submitting its own claims that regulators fail to fact check. That's why Philadelphia leaders are being forced to crowdsource whether or not Verizon met its promises. Meanwhile, Verizon tells Philly city council leaders that they're unable to offer statistics right now on their FiOS deployment because, uh, unions:

"Philadelphia should learn from New York's experience, Philadelphia City Council member Bobby Henon said during a hearing two weeks ago. “We do not want this to happen in Philadelphia,” Henon said, according to an article published by Technical.ly Philly. Henon wanted good data, but Verizon said it couldn't provide it yet because of the ongoing Verizon workers' strike. Verizon also said, “Any claims made at the hearing that we haven’t completed our obligations of our franchise agreement are untrue," according to the article."

At this point there's plenty of blame to go around for the fact that history just keeps repeating itself without getting fixed. For one thing, just like in New York City, city leaders keep signing sweetheart deals with endless loopholes designed by Verizon lawyers, then acting shocked when Verizon actually uses those loopholes. For example, several city agreements let Verizon simply pass a set total of homes with fiber (anywhere up to several blocks away), instead of technically "serving" them. Other contracts contain language letting Verizon dodge or buy their way out of deployment obligations if certain TV uptake metrics aren't met.

These are clauses cities have been warned repeatedly about but choose to ignore. Bad deals are struck behind closed doors by one administration, with subsequent city leaders left holding the bag. By that point Verizon can successfully argue that they technically met the terms of such deals, because the terms of such deals were designed to be malleable. Granted that doesn't excuse Verizon's proclivity for ripping off taxpayers on an industrial scale, but this dance of dysfunction wouldn't be quite so embarrassingly uncoordinated if cities would stop signing deals that promise the moon, but deliver stinky cheese.

Filed Under: fiber, philadelphia, promises
Companies: verizon

Despite Gigabit Hype, U.S. Broadband's Actually Getting Less Competitive Than Ever

from the beneath-the-hype dept

Despite government programs, national broadband plans, billions in subsidies and a lot of recent hype paid to gigabit services like Google Fiber, U.S. broadband is actually getting less competitive than ever before across a huge swath of the country. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have been backing away from unwanted DSL networks they simply don't want to upgrade. In some cases this involves selling these assets to smaller telcos (who take on so much debt they can't upgrade them either), but in many markets this involves actively trying to drive customers away via either rate hikes or outright neglect.

As an end result, the nation's biggest cable companies are enjoying a larger monopoly in many markets than ever before as they hoover up those fleeing customers. According to the latest postmortem of 2015 subscriber totals, the seventeen largest broadband providers acquired 3.1 million broadband subscribers last year. But if you look at the numbers more closely, you'll notice that nearly all of them were acquired by the cable industry: In fact, cable added 97% of the 6.1 million subscribers added in the last two years. Phone companies, meanwhile, lost about 185,000 subscribers last year -- the first time in the history of broadband that they saw a net loss. Again, that's because many of these companies either no longer want to be in the fixed-line broadband business because they're focusing on wireless (AT&T, Verizon) or they're growing just for growth's sake (Frontier, CenturyLink), acquiring neglected AT&T and Verizon assets, but saddling themselves with so much debt in the process they can't afford necessary upgrades.

That's great news for cable. Less fixed-line competition means they can charge higher prices, yet have less incentive to improve what's arguably already the worst customer service in the history of industry. More importantly, the cable industry can begin experimenting with usage caps and metered billing without the pesky threat of a customer being able to leave. Of course, if you ask cable providers, they'll be quick to assert they face greater competition than ever before -- but the reality is in many markets they either face no real competition or a sagging telco trying to push 3 Mbps DSL as the pinnacle of innovation.

And indeed, recent FCC data suggests that two-thirds of homes currently only have the choice of one ISP (cable) that's capable of providing speeds that even meet the new standard FCC broadband definition of 25 Mbps. ISPs and loyal Congressional allies have been whining about this higher standard precisely because it only highlights the markets slow transition to cable broadband monopoly.

That's not to downplay the impact of efforts like Google Fiber, which are going a long way to spur competition in select markets. But Google Fiber is really only focusing on a dozen or so profitable markets, and in some ways our gigabit obsession has overshadowed the fact that the majority of towns and cities are facing a stronger cable broadband monopoly (and therefore higher prices for the kinds of speeds people actually use) than ever before. That's something Tucows/Ting executive Elliot Noss touched on briefly in an interesting bit over at Medium talking about the company's own piecemeal broadband improvement efforts.

It's understandable that any given week the media would prefer to talk about the feel-good aspects of the gigabit economy, but the reality is that, thanks to telco apathy, Congressional incompetence and cable consolidation, we've quietly built a bigger, bolder cable broadband monopoly. The solution? Either waiting for wireless to mature as a fixed-line alternative (which, given current LTE usage caps and prices, could be quite a wait), or eliminating the state-level barriers erected by local duopolists, designed to prevent grass root efforts to kick-start something vaguely resembling real broadband competition.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, dsl, fiber

Comcast Nabs Huge Oregon Tax Break Thanks To Loophole Intended For Google Fiber

from the unintended-consequences dept

For a few years now, the city of Portland and the state of Oregon have been jumping through hoops to try and make Portland as attractive as possible for Google Fiber. That has involved rewriting city ordinances so that Google can place its utility cabinets along public rights of way, something previously banned in the city.

But the state of Oregon also notably reworked state tax law to provide Google with significant tax breaks. But the effort turned into a comedy of errors after initial rewrites technically disqualified Google Fiber (the revision said companies only qualified for tax breaks if they offered broadband speeds of at least 1 Gbps, while Google offers speeds "up to" 1 Gbps). But after several years of back and forth, the state this week moved to finalize the changes and craft a special Google Fiber loophole:

"An unusual Oregon tax may be the major factor that delayed the company's Portland rollout. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that cable TV and Internet companies are subject to "central assessment," a rare practice dating to the 19th Century that levies property taxes based partly on the value of certain companies' brands. Applying the tax to Google would have added millions of dollars – perhaps tens of millions of dollars – to its annual operating costs, and the company threatened to drop its Portland plans if Oregon lawmakers didn't exempt it from the tax."

But while Google Fiber has yet to even start construction, Comcast has already rushed in to nab the tax incentives. You see, Comcast offers something it calls "Gigabit Pro," a two gigabit per second service it has been offering to select areas since last year. The service promises 2 Gbps fiber to housing developments and other easy-to-wire locations, though the availability of the offering has been murkily defined at best. It's also aggressively expensive: in contrast to Google's $70 1 Gbps offering, Comcast's Gigabit Pro costs $300 a month, plus $1000 in installation and activation fees (and a $1000 ETF for good measure).

Ironically, Comcast has been trying to get out of paying Oregon's central assessment tax for years, only to be defeated before the Oregon Supreme Court in 2014. But thanks to the city and state tripping over themselves to please Google Fiber, Comcast gets a major tax break while the state takes a notable income hit:

"If the application is approved, schools, libraries and local governments across the state would receive significantly less revenue," wrote Mary Beth Henry, director of Portland's Office of Community Technology, in a letter to state regulators. "This application was not the kind anticipated by the Legislature."

Comcast, in other words, is now enjoying rich new tax breaks despite offering a service four times more expensive than Google Fiber -- which few people in Oregon will actually be able to afford. And while few people actually like Comcast or its business practices, it's hard to fully fault the company for simply taking advantage of law rewrites the state of Oregon apparently didn't fully think through.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fiber, oregon, tax breaks
Companies: comcast, google

AT&T Has Fooled The Press And Public Into Believing It's Building A Massive Fiber Network That Barely Exists

from the fiber-to-the-press-release dept

A few years ago, AT&T realized something amazing: you don't have to build a cutting edge, fiber to the home broadband network, when it's relatively easy to fool the press and public into believing you're building a cutting edge, fiber to the home network. So as AT&T was actually busy reducing its fixed-line broadband spending and quietly walking away from DSL users it didn't want to upgrade, it launched a service it calls "U-Verse with Gigapower." Basically, AT&T's delivering gigabit speeds to high-end housing developments, then pretending the upgrades are much, much larger than they actually are.

Case in point: AT&T this week breathlessly announced that the company was deploying gigabit fiber to 38 more markets, bringing the grand total of its gigabit fiber deployment to an amazing 56 total metro markets:

"AT&T announced today it is planning to expand the availability of ultra-fast speeds through AT&T GigaPower to homes, apartments and small businesses in parts of 38 additional metros across the United States – which will total at least 56 metros served. With the launch of our ultra-fast Internet service in parts of 2 of these metros today – Los Angeles and West Palm Beach – AT&T GigaPower is now available in 20 of the nation’s largest metros.

Note a few things about the announcement, however. Nowhere does the company state when these connections will be delivered. Similarly nowhere does the company make clear that it's targeting mostly high-end housing developments where fiber is already in the ground, making costs negligible (the only way you could technically accomplish a deployment of this kind and magically have your CAPEX consistently drop). And while AT&T claims these improvements will reach 14 million residential and commercial locations, AT&T gives no timeline for this accomplishment. That means it could cherry pick a few hundred thousand University condos and housing developments per year and be wrapping up this not-so-epic fiber deployment by 2040 or so.

Nowhere -- now or ever -- will you see AT&T specify precisely how many users have, or will be able to get gigabit speeds from AT&T. That's because, in reality, users in these "launched" markets will almost always find it difficult if not impossible to sign up for this gigabit service. And, in some cases, by a "launched" market AT&T actually means a few dozen homes sitting on a hill in a single housing development.

Now take a minute and look at the press coverage of AT&T's announcement, and try to find one news outlet that could be bothered to note the limited nature of these launches. Whether it's the Shreveport Times or the pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, AT&T's convinced the entire country that it's on the cusp of getting gigabit fiber that -- for the vast majority of them -- is never going to actually arrive. Even technology news outlets that should know better (if they'd spent five minutes studying AT&T's history on this front) are busy bandying about quotes how AT&T is "outpacing every other competitor."

To be clear, some AT&T customers will certainly get fiber. If you live in one of the few areas where AT&T has to actually compete thanks to Google Fiber, or in locations where it's possible to upgrade to fiber with the least amount of effort and cost possible, you may be upgraded -- eventually. Granted it won't be cheap, and you'll have to pay a steep premium if you don't want AT&T to spy on you, but you'll get fiber. More likely than not, however, you live in a DSL or U-Verse (FTTN) market that AT&T not only won't upgrade, but may be walking completely away from in order to focus on more profitable (read: usage capped) wireless.

The press and public aren't the only ones being conned. AT&T has consistently used its phantom fiber deployment as a carrot on a stick with regulators, at one point threatening to stop making these barely-there investments unless regulators walked back net neutrality. AT&T backed off the claim when the FCC asked for hard data, but this kind of telecom theater works exceptionally well in state legislatures. Last week AT&T claimed net neutrality prevented them from innovating, and this week they're portraying themselves as the innovator of the century (even though the only actual innovation here is in misleading PR).

And AT&T's not alone when it comes to bogus gigabit bravado. Most of the major phone and cable companies have similarly responded to Google Fiber by cherry picking the nation's most affluent housing developments for gigabit deployment, then pretending they're keeping pace with the nation's broadband needs. Even Google Fiber has made a habit lately of getting oodles of press attention for fiber deployments that may or may not actually happen. In reality however, two thirds of homes lack the choice of more than one ISP at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. And as AT&T and Verizon walk away from unwanted DSL markets, cable's monopoly power is going to grow, making broadband less competitive than ever in many markets.

None of this is to pooh pooh the actual gigabit fiber deployments that are occurring. While it only has an estimated 100,000 subscribers now, there's every indication Google Fiber's going to eventually have a major disruptive impact. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on at the grass roots level, whether it's municipal broadband, or companies like Tucows taking the reins and upgrading small towns, one at a time. But on the meta scale, an uncritical press is contributing to an epic case of delusion when it comes to the pace of broadband progress.

That's why we're not living in the age of fiber to the home -- so much as we're living in the age of fiber to the press release.

Filed Under: competition, fiber, fiber to the press release, gigapower, journalism, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

Close Only Counts In Horseshoes, Hand Grenades... And (Apparently) Verizon's Fiber Optic Installs

from the semantic-ninja dept

We've been covering how Verizon has swindled a long line of states and cities into giving the company all manner of subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for uniform fiber deployment that never happens (or only partially happens). While fourteen Mayors recently wrote Verizon to complain about its dubious behavior, New York City has been the most vocal critic of late, after a June audit showed that Verizon completely failed to live up to a 2008 franchise agreement with the city promising 100% FiOS coverage to all five city boroughs by 2014. Verizon accomplished about half of that.

New York City held a hearing last week intended to hold Verizon accountable, but ran face first into a telco well-versed in semantic dodgeball. You see, by refusing to define the word "passed" in its agreements, Verizon can get away with claiming it serves a house with fiber -- provided fiber gets somewhere, vaguely close to its intended target. As it has done countless times before, Verizon leaned on this ambiguousness when trying to defend the company's behavior to city officials:

Verizon reps Leecia Eve and Kevin Service stated at the hearing that Verizon has unquestionably met its promise to "pass" all households in the five-borough area, which essentially means extending the fiber so that a building could theoretically then be connected to the network. As one councilmember pointed out, that's like installing water pipes but not hooking them up to individual apartments: the water's flowing on by, but no one can actually drink it.

But it was Verizon spokesman Kevin Service who stole the show, with some award winning tap dancing during the hearing:

"We consider it to be passed if we're within the realm of substantial fiber placement," Service said when pressed on how the term is actually defined. "I'm not a lawyer, but here's what I would say: we're passed if, when we get the request for service and have the necessary rights of way, what we have left to do does not create a delay in bringing service to that customer. Under that Kevin Service Definition, we've passed every household."

In other words, Verizon claims that all of these houses it failed to reach actually have fiber if you squint your eyes and look at it just the right way. Understandably, customers somewhere "within the realm of substantial fiber placement" probably aren't impressed by Verizon's explanation, even though the spokesman goes the extra mile and tries to bizarrely name his bullshit definition after himself. In contrast, however, New York City's full audit (pdf) found that there were 42,000 outstanding requests for FiOS installation, 75% of which were outstanding for more than a year. For many of them, the fiber "passes" their homes -- sometimes up to a mile away.

While the city now claims it's exploring its legal options, those options are likely to be limited. The previous city administration signed off on this deal after closed door negotiations, not only ignoring calls for transparency and public input at the time, but thirty years of precedent when it comes to Verizon's failure to hold up its end of the bargain.

Filed Under: broadband, close, fiber, installs, kevin service, new york city, nyc, promises
Companies: verizon

Add Pittsburgh To The List Of Cities That Say Verizon Ripped Them Off

from the maybe-you-should-read-your-contracts dept

You can add Pittsburgh to the growing list of towns, cities and states that claim Verizon is ripping them off. Verizon, of course, froze its FiOS fiber expansion years ago, instead focusing its attention on more profitable (read: capped) wireless service. The company did continue to expand FiOS in a number of east coast cities (Washington, Philadelphia, New York), agreeing to full city fiber expansion in exchange for sweetheart franchise deals, tax cuts, and/or subsidies. But as cities like New York have found out, Verizon's definition of full city fiber upgrades probably doesn't match yours.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has started noticing that huge swaths of Pittsburgh haven't been upgraded, despite the city signing a franchise agreement with Verizon that called for uniform FiOS coverage. Peduto was one of fourteen mayors who recently wrote Verizon's CEO in a futile attempt to get the telco to give a damn about its rotting, taxpayer-subsidized DSL networks. Peduto's now considering legal action after Verizon failed to meet its obligations:

"We have an agreement with Verizon that, over the course of several years, the entire city would be provided with FiOS, and it was the agreement that allowed them to start putting their lines in the public right of way. They have now broken that agreement," Peduto said. "They do not have the city finished, so now we need to seek the damages that were agreed to through the contract. At this point, I'd have to talk with our law department."

As with New York's belated realization that they'd been swindled, the problem is that these cities signed these deals without reading them. Most of these contracts include oodles of fine print that let Verizon claim that homes "passed" with fiber (several blocks away) are the same as being "served" by fiber, or let Verizon pay a modest fine for missing deployment goals. As such, Verizon was quick to highlight that it met the terms of the deal, because technically -- it probably had:

"Verizon sent a letter to the City confirming it is in compliance with the terms of the franchise agreement and that with certain exceptions allowed under the franchise, there are no residential areas of the city where Verizon does not offer cable service. In addition, Verizon is scheduling a meeting with the City in the near future to explain its accomplishments."

While hindsight certainly helps, cities that don't want to be ripped off should either learn to read their contracts, or avoid doing business with companies with a generation of documented, sleazy behavior. Pittsburgh leaders in particular should have paid close attention to Verizon's multi-billion dollar swindle of Pennsylvania years earlier, in which Verizon promised ultra-fast fiber broadband in exchange for billions in subsidies, then just threw money at the state legislature and regulators to convince them to forget the obligation ever existed (Verizon did the same thing in New Jersey).

Of course that's just it; most politicians are so cash compromised they saw the warning signs but just didn't care, leaving the mess for somebody else to clean up (or ignore). And in Verizon's case, billions in undeserved subsidies across thousands of miles have left a fairly massive mess.

Filed Under: broadband, fiber, fiox, pittsburgh, promises, subsidies
Companies: verizon

Cox Sues Tempe, Arizona For Its Nefarious Plan To Bring Google Fiber To Town

from the pouting-and-crying dept

Google Fiber continues to expand and bring much needed competitive pressure to (and public conversation about) duopoly-logjammed broadband markets. Most recently the company stated it was striking preliminary agreements with San Diego, Irvine, and Louisville, negotiating "fiber hut" placement, coordinating install logistics, and getting cities to sign off on franchise deals. The company also recently announced that it had struck a preliminary deal with Tempe, Arizona, laying the groundwork for the deployment of thousands of miles of new fiber in the city, bringing Google Fiber's potential footprint to sixteen cities.

Like any good incumbent broadband ISP, Cox Communications' first reaction wasn't to welcome the challenge of a new competitor, it was to whine like a petulant child about the fairness of it all:

"It's unfortunate that the Tempe City Council is willing to favor a new entrant into the market, and in doing so appears to have violated federal and state law. The waivers granted by the City also give Google Fiber a free pass on obligations that affect public safety; such as emergency alert messaging and protection of subscriber privacy."

Cox has subsequently followed up this early whining with a new lawsuit accusing the Tempe city council of violating the law. According to the suit (pdf), Tempe violated federal law "by establishing a discriminatory regulatory framework" that gives Google Fiber preference over traditional cable companies:

"Tempe’s bald assertion that Google Fiber is not a cable operator is incorrect," Cox argued. "And based on this incorrect assertion, Tempe’s regulatory scheme allows Google Fiber to provide video programming service to subscribers in Tempe under terms and conditions that are far more favorable and far less burdensome than those applicable to Cox and other cable operators, even though Cox and Google Fiber offer video services that are legally indistinguishable."

Here's the thing though: reports out of Arizona indicate that the Tempe city council's vote opened the door for companies like Cox to negotiate their own, new agreements with the city. Indeed, nothing stopped incumbent ISPs from striking new gigabit fiber deployment deals before Google Fiber, they just lacked the competitive incentive to do so. And while some mega-ISPs originally whined about these deals, they quickly quiet down once they realize these new potential deals let them cherry pick broadband deployment (read: just wire high-end developments), something that pre-Google Fiber days used to be considered a bad thing. Note these recent comments by AT&T:

"In the past if we wanted to go into a city environment, the requirement was you build out the entire city," Stephenson explained in a keynote at the J.P. Morgan Global Technology, Media and Telecom Conference. Doing that requires a huge capital investment, one that AT&T felt it couldn't make, he noted. Google's entry into Austin, in particular, enabled AT&T to ask the city for the same terms as Google Fiber received. "Google came in and was very targeted in where they wanted to deploy fiber, and they got municipal endorsement (on that). …We said we'll take the same deal that Google got. And we got the same deal that Google got," Stephenson said."

So yes, under the din of enthusiasm over Google Fiber there is a conversation nobody seems to want to have about the problem of cherry-picked next-gen broadband deployment, but that's obviously not what Cox cares about. Cox sees something in local Tempe law that will allow it to bog Google Fiber's progress in Tempe down in the courts (Google Fiber is also slated for Cox's turf in Phoenix, where it has not filed suit). Cox could simply take Google Fiber's market entry as a challenge to negotiate a new citywide deal and up its own game, but apparently the cable operator thinks that hand-wringing and wasting everybody's time with lawyers is the more sensible tactical option.

Filed Under: arizona, broadband, competition, fiber, google fiber, lawsuits, tempe
Companies: cox, google

Verizon's Screwing New Jersey Even Harder Than Previously Believed

from the regulatory-capture dept

We've previously discussed how in 1993 Verizon conned the state of New Jersey into giving the telco all manner of subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for a promise to wire the majority of the state with symmetrical fiber. Fast forward to 2015, most of New Jersey remains on aging DSL, and the state decided it would be a wonderful idea to simply let Verizon walk away from its obligations. Of course this isn't new: Verizon's regulatory capture allowed it to do the exact same thing in Pennsylvania, and it's currently busy trying to dodge New York City FiOS build out requirements as well.

But apparently, New Jersey is getting screwed harder than state residents even knew. In addition to the sham 1993 agreement, Verizon got New Jersey officials to sign off on a 2006 statewide franchise agreement that also let the company wiggle out of FiOS deployment obligations. Essentially, Newark and Fulop Mayors began noticing that many buildings in their cities were waiving their right to have FiOS installed, something not happening in more affluent areas:

"Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City and Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark are expected to call a press conference to discuss whether Verizon is fulfilling its obligations under the act. Public records show that 21,392 different properties in Newark have waived their access rights under the franchise agreement, opting out of any right to FiOS availability. In Jersey City, that number climbed to 25,311, nearly a fifth of the city’s properties. In richer municipalities like Trenton, Weehawken, and Hackensack, that number never climbed above 3,000."

Verizon's 2006 franchise agreement required that the telco make its fiber-based FiOS service available to New Jersey's 70 densest municipalities, including poor areas in Newark and Jersey City that might not otherwise see coverage. But Verizon appears to be abusing a loophole in the franchise agreement that allows it to add buildings to an acceptable "waiver" list of exemptions should Verizon run into trouble during installs. But Verizon appears to be making it intentionally difficult for landlords in poorer cities to successfully contact and schedule installs with Verizon:

"What we understand the practice to be is that, if you're in a wealthy high-rise next to the water in Jersey City, they will bend over backwards trying to get into that building," says Seth Hahn of the Communication Workers of America union, which has supported the mayors in their efforts to get more cable laid. "But if you live on the other end of the tracks, they'll send you a letter saying, 'We'd like access to your building.’" After a labyrinth of phone calls and offerings, the landlord will often end up on a waiver list without realizing it, Hahn says."

None of this is to say landlords can't be difficult. In a 2013 PSC filing with the state of New York (pdf), Verizon claims many landlords refused the telco access to building infrastructure, and some even tried to charge the telco for building access. But looking at the data, it seems somewhat obvious that there's a big discrepancy among waiver totals in poorer cities:Now this could be coincidental, but given Verizon's history on this front, claims that Verizon's using landlords as a bogeyman to justify failure to adhere to obligations seem very likely. You'd need to investigate to be sure, but since New Jersey is already pretty lax on holding Verizon accountable, it's painfully unlikely that the state will ever bother. And letting Verizon get away with this kind of stuff isn't unique; this same story plays out in dozens of states nationwide. Repeatedly.

But the core of this problem is again regulatory capture and these statewide TV franchise agreements. The new laws were pushed by AT&T and Verizon in dozens of states around ten years ago, and were quickly rammed through by campaign-cash soaked state legislatures under the promise of new jobs and lower TV prices thanks to increased competition. But most if not all of the agreements were written by telco lobbyists and lawyers. As such, most of them are basically phone company wishlists, and in some places like Wisconsin, went so far as to gut all consumer protections and even some eminent domain rights.

So yeah, if you didn't realize it already companies like AT&T and Verizon all but own many state legislatures, as evident by the fact they literally write the laws governing their behavior. The end result of that may not be surprising, but the fact that we never seem to learn from decades of this kind of behavior should be.

Filed Under: fiber, fios, fulsop, loopholes, new jersey, newark, poor, waivers
Companies: verizon

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

from the ill-communication dept

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