Is Verizon discriminating against the poor?

[mom-from-missouri]

It wasn't my example. It's something I learned in a college class. I didn't make it up.

The lesson was about certain companies profiling certain people in certain areas because there may be a risk involved in doing business with them. The lesson sparked a lot of interesting debate about whether or not such business practices are discriminatory.

Had a similar discussion when I was in college in a physcology class. It was why certain businesses avoided certain areas, groups and such.

Also, when I was in college )late 70's early 80's) I delivered pizzas. There were certain areas of town that we could not deliver to after hours, because of crime and previous drivers being robbed. And, this was an ALL WHITE town, so race had nothing to do with that--strickly safety. In fact, the owner showed us a letter from his insurance company that stated (after 2 drivers were robbed and a delivery truck stolen--3 seperate issues)that insuance coverage would be dropped if we continued to deliver there after dusk. It was a college town, and college kids doing it. 35 years later, they still have the same issues there. Kids go to college, out of parents control and destroy certain parts of the town, unfort, the older parts with the most history.

[phantom]

This story reminds me a bit of how power companies didn't want to run power lines lines out into the country for farmers. But, while you can argue that farmers can really benefit from electric lights and time saving electric appliances, it's hard to make the same argument about the usefulness of fiber-optic TV and and internet.

I imagine that there are enough poor households that would subscribe to FiOS that Verizon will justify building lines for them eventually. But, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to go into the neighborhoods where people are more likely to pay for 5 HD DVR boxes and the fastest internet option first. I also think that the poor neighborhoods might be better off without FiOS, because it seems that once FiOS is an option, Verizon does not offer their less-expensive, non-FiOS option for internet.

[bjl584]

Brian's example was taxis not picking up people of a certain race or "profile" because they MIGHT ask to be taken to certain dangerous neighborhoods. I stand by my earlier statement that the example is absurd.

Why is it absurd? It all ties into the same idea. Which is, businesses not willing to do business in certain areas due to crime/poverty/whatever. Verizon may be engaging in this behavior. They might not be, and this could just be a politician looking for votes, but it just reminded me of a lesson I had in a class where businesses avoided certain areas for one reason or another.

[DebbieL]

Uh, because you don't want your delivery person to get shot?

Horrible but true. Someone phoned in a fake pizza delivery call a few years back sending the delivery person to the front of the condo development I was living in at that time. They then beat the person senseless with a baseball bat to the back of the head and left them for dead. I don't know how that poor delivery driver made out, or if they are permanently brain damaged. It was horrifying, and I'm pretty sure no pizza company would have wanted to deliver to my building for quite some time after that awful incident. I don't think they ever caught who did it either.

[NuggetBrain]

Why is it absurd? It all ties into the same idea. Which is, businesses not willing to do business in certain areas due to crime/poverty/whatever. Verizon may be engaging in this behavior. They might not be, and this could just be a politician looking for votes, but it just reminded me of a lesson I had in a class where businesses avoided certain areas for one reason or another.

Uh, because assuming a black person is going to ask you to drive to the ghetto is not cool. Declining to drive someone somewhere once you actually know where they're going is fine. One makes assumptions based purely on skin color. The other responds to presented facts.

[ThriftoRama]

It's easy to dismiss this as a simple business decision. If the people are too poor to buy the service, don't spend money putting it there.

That doesn't take into account the power and essential nature of the internet and communications technologies now. Without access, poorer people will fall even farther behind the haves. Their children won't be able to access schoolwork online, or take advantage of online micro-business opportunities, even the chance to research services or get needed items for free on craigslist.

The internet and cell phones have become a utility, as essential as water and electricity, due to their power to change and improve lives. (Not saying you can't be a video game and netflix vegetable too, but hey).

[Like2Plan]

This story reminds me a bit of how power companies didn't want to run power lines lines out into the country for farmers.

I was thinking the same thing when I first read this thread. Even now, there are Rural electric CO-OPs. Without the Co-OPs, I would wager there would still be areas today not served by utilities.
Link to Co-op History
"In the late 1940s and early 1950s, most rural people in North Dakota and the rest of the country lived without electricity. Power companies were convinced that they couldn't make money by serving the rural countryside, so they declined to run power lines out to the country."

But, while you can argue that farmers can really benefit from electric lights and time saving electric appliances, it's hard to make the same argument about the usefulness of fiber-optic TV and and internet

I believe an argument can be made in favor of internet access for all. There are some governmental services which can only be easily accessed by the internet (or darn difficult to access if you don't have internet). Some employers will only take resumes submitted on the internet. Internet skills are something you need to stay competitive. In some communities, internet access is considered so basic that subsidized internet service is provided. It is hard to provide the service if you don't have the infrastructure.

I also think that the poor neighborhoods might be better off without FiOS, because it seems that once FiOS is an option, Verizon does not offer their less-expensive, non-FiOS option for internet.

I recently upgraded to FIOS. I used to have DSL. I clocked my DSL speeds at .337 Mbps-.667Mbps download at its best. Sometimes I clicked on a link and went to get coffee while the page loaded. My 3GS iphone was faster. I now have 43mbs download and 33mbs upload speeds. I am paying about $25.00 more per month than what I was paying for before when I only had internet, phone & LD service. My package now includes the HD TV package which we never had before. I could have just signed up for the phone and internet package and would have been paying less. (We used to only have antenna and I could only get two channels on my TV. )

I guess Verizon has some more time to finish putting in the service and still be in compliance with the contract. My question is do folks have any other alternative that would provide a similar service (like cable or DirectTV) or is this contract basically a monopoly for Verizon?

[kv968]

I guess Verizon has some more time to finish putting in the service and still be in compliance with the contract. My question is do folks have any other alternative that would provide a similar service (like cable or DirectTV) or is this contract basically a monopoly for Verizon?

I use cable for TV and internet. I could use it for phone also and have been thinking about it.

I just clocked my speeds and they're 21.5 Mbps down and 1.4 Mbps up. I could upgrade and get "up to" 50 Mbps down and 8 Mbps up for $15 more per month but what I have now works fine for me.

[bjl584]

Uh, because assuming a black person is going to ask you to drive to the ghetto is not cool. Declining to drive someone somewhere once you actually know where they're going is fine. One makes assumptions based purely on skin color. The other responds to presented facts.

Actually, both your scenarios were presented. In the first scenario, cab drivers were passing by black people and instead picking up white people because the drivers did not want to pick up the black person assuming that they would take them to a bad neighborhood. We discussed this issue in class. There was also a 60 minutes episode on this very thing which served as the primer for the class discussion. The cab company in question was asked about this, but the results were inconclusive. It's nearly impossible to prove that this was going on, even though it was.

In the second scenario, cab drivers were refusing to take people to certain areas once the passenger entered the vehicle and told the driver where they wanted to go. In this scenario, it did not matter the skin color of the individual. It mattered more on the location that they wished to travel. These instances were much more tracable and easier to prove and subsequently easier to curtail IF it could be proven that the driver was avoiding an area for other reasons than stictly safety. Drivers usually avoided areas because they assumed certyain locations yielded lower customer volume and lower cab fairs.

So, my examples were not absurd at all. I stand by them. Both are based on fact. One is outright racism. The other is discrimination usually based on perceived revenue on the drivers part. But, both occur on a regular basis.

[asmom]

Why is it absurd? It all ties into the same idea. Which is, businesses not willing to do business in certain areas due to crime/poverty/whatever. Verizon may be engaging in this behavior. They might not be, and this could just be a politician looking for votes, but it just reminded me of a lesson I had in a class where businesses avoided certain areas for one reason or another.

Wanting to avoid crime and poverty is not a problem, it's the "whatever" that's the problem. I've lived in many types of neighborhoods. By and large, Black neighborhoods get fewer services and slower services regardless of economics. In other word with all things being equal with the exception of race, all things are NOT equal. That's a proven fact. That may be okay with you but it's not okay with me.

[asmom]

Driving to work this morning, I heard a story on the local new (Philadelphia). A city councilman is accusing Verizon of dragging their feet and delaying the installation of FIOS in the poorer neighborhoods of the city. Apparently, Verizon was awarded the contract in 2009 and the work is supposed to be completed city wide by 2016. Other more affluent sections of the city have had the work done but, according to him, the poorer districts that he represents have not.

What really struck me about the story was what the councilman said. And this is a direct quote: "we want to make sure that every neighborhood in the city is getting built out with the Fios, and not just neighborhoods that can afford to pay the fees." So he is admitting that what he wants is for a private company to spend millions of dollars to install a service in an area where the residents can't afford to buy that service. That doesn't sound like discrimination to me. It sounds lie good solid business sense on Verizon's part.

The answer to your question Steve is YES, it does sound like Verizon is discriminating against the poor. As I understand it, the agreement was for them to offer the FIOS to the ENTIRE city, not just the ones they prefer. They knew when they lobbied for this agreement (and it's my understanding they begged for it), that there were parts of Philly that were poor. They don't get to drag their feet now and get around to the less desirables when or if they feel like it. Surely they must have used their good solid business sense to figure out that there were some parts of the city in which they were going to make less money than others and yet, they asked to cover the entire city. So they are just going to have to deal with it.

[disneysteve]

Asmom - they have until 2016 to finish the job. It is only the first half of 2012. What's wrong with doing the more lucrative neighborhoods first?