Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Verizon Communications Government Network United States

Verizon 'Grossly Overstated' Its 4G LTE Coverage In Government Filings, Trade Group Says (arstechnica.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the something-doesn't-add-up-here dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Verizon "grossly overstated" its 4G LTE coverage in government filings, potentially preventing smaller carriers from obtaining funding needed to expand coverage in underserved rural areas, a trade group says. The Federal Communications Commission last year required Verizon and other carriers to file maps and data indicating their current 4G LTE coverage. The information will help the FCC determine where to distribute up to $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over the next 10 years. The funds are set aside for "primarily rural areas that lack unsubsidized 4G," the FCC says. If Verizon provided the FCC with inaccurate data, the company's rural competitors might not be able to get that government funding. "Verizon's claimed 4G LTE coverage is grossly overstated," the Rural Wireless Association (RWA), which represents rural carriers, told the FCC in a filing yesterday. "Verizon should not be allowed to abuse the FCC challenge process by filing a sham coverage map as a means of interfering with the ability of rural carriers to continue to receive universal service support in rural areas," the RWA wrote. "RWA's members are in the middle of the Challenge Process but are expending enormous time and financial resources in their efforts due to inaccurate data submitted by Verizon," the group said. "RWA requests that the Commission investigate the 4G LTE coverage claimed by Verizon and require re-filing of Verizon's data to correct its overstated coverage."

According to the RWA, Verizon claims to cover almost all of the Oklahoma Panhandle, an area of 14,778.47 square kilometers, but estimates that the actual coverage area should be approximately 6,806.49 square kilometers. "[That's] not even half of the LTE coverage area Verizon publicly claims to serve," the RWA wrote.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon 'Grossly Overstated' Its 4G LTE Coverage In Government Filings, Trade Group Says More

Verizon 'Grossly Overstated' Its 4G LTE Coverage In Government Filings, Trade Group Says

Comments Filter:

  • One solution (Score:3)

    by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @04:03PM (#57087906) Homepage Journal

    Real fines. In this case, $ Billions. Only a couple would work. Oh, and either ban from spectrum auctions or, even better, surcharge their winning bid by 50%.

    Of course all this Lifeline and Universal Service stuff ought to go, but rural service is a fundamentally less lucrative market. this will lead incumbents to fight off competition with the available tools, fraudulent claims being an easy one. I'm almost surprised this was caught.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Radio stations that don't map their coverage correctly either over transmitting or under risk losing their license. Verizon should have their licenses brought back up for auction as they are wasting a precious public resource.

    • Re:One solution (Score:4)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @04:58PM (#57088256)

      Real fines. In this case, $ Billions. Only a couple would work.

      You're delusional if you think that pittance would do anything.

      Oh, and either ban from spectrum auctions or, even better, surcharge their winning bid by 50%.

      Again, you assume they care about a paltry surcharge after winning at auction. They have hundreds of millions of customers. All they have to do is add $1 to every customer bill and call it a "spectrum protection fee" or some such bullshit. Any auction surcharge will be paid for within months, and would deliver pure profit (read: executive bonuses) after that. That ROI is easily justified to a Board you're about to make even richer.

      And no, Verizon customers won't cancel their service over a $1 surcharge. When it comes down to it, they might bitch for a day or two but won't actually do jack shit. Consumers are lazy, and mega-corps know it.

      Of course all this Lifeline and Universal Service stuff ought to go, but rural service is a fundamentally less lucrative market. this will lead incumbents to fight off competition with the available tools, fraudulent claims being an easy one. I'm almost surprised this was caught.

      I'm holding my surprise to add to my shock when being "caught" actually results in something being done other than laughable fines. As it stands right now, mega-corps don't care about being caught. Verizon probably calculated getting caught vs. the revenue secured in falsely stated markets and the gains associated with marketing the "best" LTE coverage and figured out getting caught is worth it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if another wireless provider pulled this exact same shit after this, ]because they'll know it's worth the risk.

      Here's the fucking icing on the Irony cake; Wanna know what would actually happen if the FCC actually hit Verizon with a fine large enough for them to actually feel it?

      Verizon would claim they're Too Big To Fail, and ask for a government bailout, on the taxpayers dime.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Criminal fraud charges for the executives who submitted the maps. 5-10 in federal prison is a powerful disincentive.

        • Criminal fraud charges for the executives who submitted the maps. 5-10 in federal prison is a powerful disincentive.

          The day that happens is the day Executive Fall Guy becomes an officially recognized profession.

          No one important is going to jail. That's a job for the plebs.

      • All they have to do is add $1 to every customer bill and call it a "spectrum protection fee" or some such bullshit.

        You appear to be assuming that Verizon has not already set their prices (plus taxes and fees) at the point which brings in the maximum revenue.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          If Verizon's operating costs increase, they're no longer getting optimal profit if they keep the costs to the customer the same. The bit about it being a protection fee is a jab at the fact that they can increase the cost of the bill, without increasing the cost of the actual plan. Many(Most?) people aren't going to even pay attention to the extra $1 on the bill. Many of the ones that do will see it's under the fees and assume it's due to government BS. Most that do will probably be annoyed by it, but $1/mo

          • If Verizon's operating costs increase, they're no longer getting optimal profit if they keep the costs to the customer the same.

            If Verizon's costs increase, that provides zero leverage to increase their prices or fees. Hence their profits go down, and there is little they can do about it -- assuming Verizon has already maximized total revenue.

            If all market participant's costs increase, then Verizon has some leverage to increase prices or fees. Otherwise, no.

            $1 may not be enough to turn off current custom

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Xenx ( 2211586 )
              You give Verizon, and for that matter.. people, too much credit.Those types of fees aren't in the upfront costs of the plan. They're in with the other taxes and fees. It's not what people see when they choose their provider. They look at coverage(maybe) and the plan costs. When the price increase isn't part of the plan, they don't see it until after the fact. This type of crap already happens, so there is no use arguing that it wouldn't happen.Yes, there is sometimes some backlash. But usually, even when a
    • Allow any cellphone company that can prove a gap in coverage to claim that geographic region, and take the spectrum monopoly for it, for free.

    • A ban on spectrum auctions? The bands they just bought should be fucking confiscated. They were only allowed to buy it in the first place because they agreed to use it to improve coverage, not sit on it to stifle competition.

  • Criminal enterprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bmimatt ( 1021295 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @04:07PM (#57087932)
    They are just that. See who supported Ajit's musings, the dismantling of Net Neutrality. Fuck these guys, fine them to death.

    • Is there a telco which is not outright fraudulent? Every cell provider's coverage maps are dirty lies. Interestingly, though it in no way mitigates this complaint, VZ is the only provider that actually seems to have coverage in all the places I go to. ATT and T-Mobile most certainly do not. I'm on T-Mo prepaid right now and I get nothing at all at home, while my neighbor has VZ and can at least get texts. And I don't just mean in my house, I mean on the property at all.

      When you add to that the fact that We

      • I'm certainly no fan of VZ or ATT but I'm happy with T-Mobile. I was in the store last week and the guy mentioned that they have signal amplifiers that you can use. All you need to do is put down a $25 deposit and they will let you use it for free. You just return the equipment if you terminate service. I can't attest to how well it works (or doesn't) but it might be worth a try in your case.

        • I wonder if they will do that for a lowly prepaid customer like me. I've been a customer for something like ten years now... but all prepaid.

          • Not sure. The dude at the store didn't mention anything about that. Doesn't hurt to ask though.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Hate to break the news to ya but most of those "signal amps" they offer? Its just using your home internet which if you are gonna do that why not just get a Magic Jack and save the extra dough?

              If that's what it is, then there's no point, since I'm on satellite. I already use google voice to make calls at home.

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • I'm on Exede and it's pretty good, although it does get kind of flaky when the fog is at its heaviest... And I'm living in Albion, CA. I'm far enough up the road to where it's not foggy full time, though.

                  Can't game on it, at least not real games, but it's surprisingly usable.

                  Unfortunately, I'm looking to do a bunch of RVing in the future and there are only hellishly expensive or annoying options for that now. And since there's no unlimited tethering plans (VZ wants like $100 for 18GB) that's gonna suck.

            • I've shot a 4G signal over 20 miles before. I can get some sort of VZW signal anywhere in the OK to TX panhandle, sometimes it just takes a yagi antennae and a cellular frequency AMP. If there's line of sight to a tower, there's usually a way.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          "I was in the store last week and the guy mentioned that they have signal amplifiers that you can use. "

          That doesn't work when you're inside of a building with stucco walls - you're practically surrounded by a Faraday Cage.

          E.G. a fuckton of the Southwestern USA from California to Texas.

          I have to keep my phone by my bedroom window to get a signal.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by pnutjam ( 523990 )
            Both Vtech & Panasonic have cordless phones that will accept a regular phone line, or bluetooth connect to a cellphone, or both. The one I have can connect to at least two phones, with a distinct ring for each. That way you can leave your cell where it gets service and still use the line all around the house.

      • Anecdote: I used to have the Verizon network. But I frequently drive from the Baltimore area to the region of Fairmont WV, and Vz faded out a lot of the way (I-70 and I-68). In and around Fairmont (which straddles I-79), I got nothing, nada, zip, despite Vz's maps showing coverage there. I switched to the AT&T network, and no drops between here and there, plus excellent service there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pnutjam ( 523990 )
        I recently discovered that there are cordless phones that will bluetooth tether to a cellphone. If you only get cell coverage in a specific part of your house, this might be an option. I bought one for my Mother in law since she couldn't figure out how to work a smart phone properly.

  • In future news ... (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @04:07PM (#57087938)

    Current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, and former Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications, shrugged, and remarked, "Eh."

    • Consider however that there is major support for the Republican party from rural voters. Thus it's in Republican interets to support universal coverage. If they stand up and say "the free market only cares about city folk" they'll lose a lot of votes.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by danlip ( 737336 )

        Of course they won't actually say that. But their behavior reflects that attitude, and their base is too uninformed to figure it out.

      • Consider however that there is major support for the Republican party from rural voters. Thus it's in Republican interets to support universal coverage.

        Nah, they'll just blame the situation on Hillary's emails and the red states will eat it right up.

  • I stopped considering coverage maps long ago, because as far as I could tell they were absolute bullshit for every carrier.

    I stayed with T-Mobile after verifying it worked well enough in most places I am, including long road trips and areas where I know service is unlikely from anyone.

    Verizon despite being a liar it seems like still has the widest actual coverage. But they are just too expensive for the service I need. (global coverage costs were a huge issue for me).

    • I live in far Northern California (basically north of Sacramento), and coverage maps are hilariously inaccurate for anywhere outside of cities and major road ways (and even then sometimes). I have a good idea of what carriers work in what areas, and there is no way that VZ, ATT, T-Mo or Sprint maps are accurate.

      I can even tell you that coverage only works if you have booster and good aftermarket antenna (tuned for certain bands).

      Towers come n go, they change the output on them, they count the long range fre

  • In a better world (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @04:23PM (#57088028)

    This is just make-believe, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the government agency with oversight authority had Justice successfully prosecute the executives responsible and they received large fines and long jail sentences?

    But we all know how this works in the real world; regulators go after the corporation instead, then announce to the public what amazing heroes they for a large financial settlement against an evil corporation. Then Elizabeth Warren has an orgasm and proclaims how wonderful is government regulation. Also, if you are the Obama administration, then you misdirect the proceeds of settlements to left-wing political activists instead of to Treasury. (Really. They did that routinely.) The stock holders, who are at no fault themselves, pay the penalty and the executives who committed the crime are granted immunity in exchanged for testimony and continue on happily with their outsized salaries. Summary: The government responds to corporate crime by punishing the innocent and exonerating the guilty.

    Corporations would act less criminally if officials enforcing the laws sought penalties for those who actually perpetrated the crimes. Achieving that depends on replacing regulation with rule-of-law and reforming a grandstanding and ethically corrupt Justice Department.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
      Man, that's a lot of claims there and I'd like to see the citation for just one. You can start with:

      Then Elizabeth Warren has an orgasm

  • Verizon lied? (Score:3)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @05:27PM (#57088396) Homepage Journal

    I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

  • Trade group representing carriers that would get more government money if Verizon exaggerated its coverage... says Verizon exaggerated its coverage.

    Hmmm.

  • I changed providers from AT&T to Verizon when I moved from Indianapolis back to my hometown of Midland. Mainly because AT&T didn't have the coverage. The Verizon rep assured me that they would have the coverage. You know in hindsight the coverage is about the same.

  • Verizon has always had a blighted eye regarding service and support for small and rural communities, oftentimes treating them with contempt and poor QOS, both consumer and commercial. They recently have been shedding exchanges like a husky blows its pelt, selling out to cut-rate operations like Frontier. This oftentimes has a nasty effect of degrading services in these communities, or worse, services being cut due to a lack of complete information on the infrastructure. One organization needed 15Mbps MPL

  • Why we already know where the $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over the next 10 years will go if Ajit Pai has his way.
    Right into the pockets of the big telcos.DSL will still cost more then broadband everywhere except urban areas and the US will continue to have the most expensive, slowest and poorest coverage.

  • I don't know much about the subsidy issue -- but I do know that the coverage maps for the big four have been largely inaccurate at their fringes for quite a few years. Everyone knows it, but nobody has ever really tried to do anything substantive about it.

    Personally, I think that one of the reasons that these maps are so inaccurate is that they're rarely updated to account for non-network changes to an area, which adversely affect coverage. My own anecdote is illustrative of this particular problem: Back wh

Slashdot Top Deals

//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH

Close