NYC Says Verizon's Blocking Access to Key Infrastructure Verizon's already being accused of lagging on FiOS deployment promises in New York City, after strongly implying in 2008 they'd cover 100% of the city if it received a very-Verizon-friendly franchise deal from then Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Instead, the city claims Verizon cherry picked many of the city's more profitable areas, and only got between 45 and 55% of the city wired despite gaining a number of deal perks. Now the city is accusing Verizon of blocking competitors' access to necessary underground conduit via way of the company's subsidiary: quote:

“We are disturbed by reports that the company and its subsidiary, Empire City Subway, may have engaged in practices that hamper access to key infrastructure by other operators,” said Anne Roest, commissioner for the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. Through its acquisition of Empire City, Verizon controls the piping, or conduit, that is used by to telecom providers in New York City. Verizon has blamed both complaints on the fact that the company is in heated debate with city unions over a new contract. Of course it's possible the CWA is using these issues as a weapon, and the complaints are valid, simultaneously. Those of your familiar with the ILEC/CLEC wars of the late 90s (I helped coordinate Verizon frame relay installs at Manhattan law firms) and early 2000s know that this sort of behavior is certainly not uncommon for an incumbent. Verizon has blamed both complaints on the fact that the company is in heated debate with city unions over a new contract. Of course it's possible the CWA is using these issues as a weapon, and the complaints are valid, simultaneously. Those of your familiar with the ILEC/CLEC wars of the late 90s (I helped coordinate Verizon frame relay installs at Manhattan law firms) and early 2000s know that this sort of behavior is certainly not uncommon for an incumbent.







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 1 recommendation karlmarx Member Verizon is required to deny access Remember, Verizon exists solely to enrich their shareholders. If by denying access to competitors who could potentially take away any of their revenue, then they are forced to use cheap tricks and lies to stop said competitors from competing. This isn't a democracy in play, this is how corporations do business. If I was a verizon shareholder, and verizon WAS playing nice, I would be pissed. Verizon has an obligation to provide it's shareholders with the greatest return possible, so tactics like this are just part of their book of dirty tricks to ensure they are doing all they can.

The solution of course, is to take away the personhood rights of Verizon, and jail the executives who flaunt the laws, break promises, and use every trick possible to maximize returns. As long as the only 'penalty' that a 'company' like verizon can face is a fine, then they have zero obligation to follow the law, as whatever 'fines' they pay will be more than offset by the benefit they receive by breaking the law. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 2 recommendations openbox9 Premium Member Re: Verizon is required to deny access said by karlmarx: Verizon has an obligation to provide it's shareholders with the greatest return possible said by karlmarx: The solution of course, is to take away the personhood rights of Verizon, and jail the executives who flaunt the laws, break promises, and use every trick possible to maximize returns. No, Verizon has an obligation to it's board, representing shareholders, to grow a sustainable and profitable business.Go for it. When execs knowingly/willing conduct criminal acts, I say prosecute them. Not sure how that will change any of what's being discussed here.

ieolus

Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19

Danbury, CT ieolus to karlmarx

Member to karlmarx

I was with you until the end. Why is it that fines are always so low? Why can't fines be in the billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, enough to actually hurt and hinder a corporation that does wrong?



I just don't get it.

miataman

Premium Member

join:2010-10-27

Chelmsford, MA miataman Premium Member Re: Verizon is required to deny access said by ieolus: Why can't fines be in the billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, enough to actually hurt and hinder a corporation that does wrong? ... And just who do you suppose ends up "subsidizing" those fine payments?

CylonRed

MVM

join:2000-07-06

Bloom County CylonRed MVM Re: Verizon is required to deny access /sarcasm in that case fines should be done away with completely which is a joke (as much as small fines).



If they get large fines then the board should question why they have to keep raising prices and not getting any extra profit out of it. If they raise prices enough - people will leave and further hurt the bottom line...

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 1 recommendation karlmarx Member Re: Verizon is required to deny access said by CylonRed: If they raise prices enough - people will leave and further hurt the bottom line. Yes, that would work well, in a free market. Tell me, how many people would WILLINGLY stick with comcast if they have access to google fiber, or any of the muni broadbands which offer 10 times the speeds at 1/2 the price? If they get large fines, they raise prices, and, there is nothing you can do about it. As it should be obvious, the ROOT cause of the problem, is that MOST people do not have a choice in broadband providers. There, I said it. If you want more than 25MB/sec, 90%+ of the US is stuck with a single provider. Having said that, your 'ability to leave' is severely hamstung when you truly DON'T have the ability to vote with your wallet

CylonRed

MVM

join:2000-07-06

Bloom County CylonRed MVM Re: Verizon is required to deny access They can't raise prices indefinitely - just not possible but yes - the root is lack of competition. But not fining is not an option and if the attitude is 'the consumer will be hurt' then that is effectively a no fine attitude.

vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko to karlmarx

Premium Member to karlmarx

Well, if cable TV was suddenly priced at $1,000 per month, I'm guessing most people would drop it. So while the lack of competition allows higher prices to be tolerated, there's still a limit, unless you're talking life-or-death necessities, which cable isn't.

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto to miataman

Premium Member to miataman

said by miataman: said by ieolus: Why can't fines be in the billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, enough to actually hurt and hinder a corporation that does wrong? ... And just who do you suppose ends up "subsidizing" those fine payments?



In fact it is impossible to fine without money just like it is impossible to pay taxes without money, therefore it only makes sense to fine the money and tax the money because we're not paying those things with goat bones and smiles. It's pretty simple actually. You structure the law so the fines must show that the fines are taken from profits to shareholders.In fact it is impossible to fine without money just like it is impossible to pay taxes without money, therefore it only makes sense to fine the money and tax the money because we're not paying those things with goat bones and smiles. smk11

join:2014-11-12 smk11 to miataman

Member to miataman

said by miataman: ...

... And just who do you suppose ends up "subsidizing" those fine payments? If they are large enough, no one. Assets would be seized for non-payment. No point in wasting time with courts with high level executives, just remove their ability to make money. Look at how well eminent domain and civil forfeiture works on the public.

vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko to miataman

Premium Member to miataman

Customers do to a point, but even with the lack of competition, there's a limit to how much people will pay for services before they start doing without.

Metatron2008

Premium Member

join:2008-09-02

united state 1 recommendation Metatron2008 to ieolus

Premium Member to ieolus

Fines just get subsidized by the taxpayer, start jailing the executives instead

vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko Premium Member Re: Verizon is required to deny access No, fines are subsidized by customers, regardless of their taxpayer status. And while customers might not have a choice of providers, they do have a choice to drop the service entirely, and if the price gets high enough, they won't have a choice. Then the fines are subsidized by exactly who they're meant to target: executives who suddenly have to put up with profits tanking. smk11

join:2014-11-12 smk11 to Metatron2008

Member to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008: Fines just get subsidized by the taxpayer, start jailing the executives instead



Seize the assets that generate the revenue. Executive pay would increase and/or in house counsel brought in to cover the increased liability risk.Seize the assets that generate the revenue.

mackey

Premium Member

join:2007-08-20 0.9 2.0

mackey to ieolus

Premium Member to ieolus

said by ieolus: Why is it that fines are always so low? Why can't fines be in the billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, enough to actually hurt and hinder a corporation that does wrong?



I just don't get it. Because the people who set the fines are owned by the corporations . See, they placate the general public by making underhanded tactics illegal, but are careful to make the penalty for getting caught nothing but a slap on the wrist so to not piss off their owners, err, "sponsors."

sludgemaster

Premium Member

join:2005-12-06

Bronx, NY 1 recommendation sludgemaster to karlmarx

Premium Member to karlmarx

Not true -- because Empire City Subway (owned by Verizon) owns the conduit, but only pursuant to a franchise agreement with the City of New York (that owns the real estate) which requires Verizon to allow all other operators access to the conduit. So Empire City Subway is in violation of the the franchise agreement. So, NYC can terminate the franchise agreement and wipe out Empire City's value or Verizon can behave. It would be a serious hit to Verizon's shareholders if NYC pulled the franchise agreement -- so, no, as a matter of corporate strategy Verizon is not required to deny access to other carriers.

imanogre

join:2005-11-29

Smyrna, GA imanogre Member Honesty Does anyone believe a single word uttered by Verizon anymore? Seriously?

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member HUH? I don't understand. Does VZ own the "right-of-way" and not the City? What are the tax implications? I'm so confused.

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: HUH? They own the underground RoW for telecom in Manhattan and the Bronx. It's been that way since the 1800's when NYtel was given a franchise to run the underground duct system

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: HUH? said by Zenit: They own the underground RoW for telecom in Manhattan and the Bronx. It's been that way since the 1800's when NYtel was given a franchise to run the underground duct system OK, but all right of ways have to be shared with any and all comers. CATV doesn't have a problem with this "Bell" owned "right-of-way".

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: HUH?



I have no idea what the problem is. Its possible VZ is making it a pain to apply for access to these ducts. The whole process is outlined on the ECS website:

»empirecitysubway.com/dbwecs.html



Going by what ECS says the city has just as much say as ECS as you need permission to occupy the ground with your cables from the city. True, Time Warner has been leasing space in those ducts for a long time now.I have no idea what the problem is. Its possible VZ is making it a pain to apply for access to these ducts. The whole process is outlined on the ECS website:Going by what ECS says the city has just as much say as ECS as you need permission to occupy the ground with your cables from the city.

sludgemaster

Premium Member

join:2005-12-06

Bronx, NY sludgemaster to batterup

Premium Member to batterup

Not exactly. Empire City Subway ("ECS") owns the physical conduit, but does not own the ROW real estate. ECS has a franchise from NYC to use NYC's real estate for its conduit. ECS must accommodate all others and charges them (handsomely) for it. So ECS is a public utility. Like all utilities it has all manner of rules and regulations for others accessing its conduit. It uses these rules and regulations to prioritize Verizon cable and generally delays and impedes access by others. I know, I have leased conduit space from them.

josephf

join:2009-04-26 josephf Member Empire City Subway part of Verizon for over a hundred years Through its acquisition of Empire City Empire City Subway has been a subsidiary of New York Telephone, now called Verizon New York, since its inception in the late 1800s.

miataman

Premium Member

join:2010-10-27

Chelmsford, MA miataman Premium Member Re: Empire City Subway part of Verizon for over a hundred years said by josephf: Through its acquisition of Empire City LOL... One of the best moves they ever made; Truly representative of thinking "outside the box". tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member build NEW conduit. so, build some NEW conduit.. problem solved!

Verizon doesn't have to be the ONLY company who can have fiber conduits in NYC...

the cable companies have fiber conduits too.. there's plenty of space left.. afterall, all you need to do is dig deeper if necessary

sludgemaster

Premium Member

join:2005-12-06

Bronx, NY 1 recommendation sludgemaster Premium Member Re: build NEW conduit. Well, no actually. The street beds of NYC are an incredible morass of utilities with very little room to maneuver without damaging something else. Due to these engineering constraints and the substantial cost of damage (think high-pressure gas lines next to electrical conduit), it is very capital intensive to obtain a franchise from NYC for new conduit. Many routes are full and there is no room for new conduit. You can't just dig deeper because you have to go around and through the existing infrastructure. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member Re: build NEW conduit. Capital intensive, maybe.. but most utilities don't go more than a few hundred feet under ground. Usually for geostability & access reasons, but there is still room BELOW the current infrastructure.. would it be cheap? Hell no.. but possible? Yes, entirely (who wouldn't bet we NEED extra conduit to last the next 200 years in Manhattan).. The other solution being if Verizon wants to play monopoly.. then the government NYS should just play the emminent domain card with the conduit and open access to NEW companies over the SAME fibers-- particularly in Manhattan where it would be vastly cost prohibitave. IIRC, NYC lets those utility passageways rot until something breaks. There is very little upkeep to prevent disasters, more bandaids than johnson and johnson. your comment..

