DOCSLIB.ORG

Oversight and Action Is Required to Protect Verizon New York Telephone Customers and Expand Broadband Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oversight and Action Is Required to Protect Verizon New York Telephone Customers and Expand Broadband Services It’s All Interconnected: Oversight and Action is Required to Protect Verizon New York Telephone Customers and Expand Broadband Services Public Utility Law Project of New York, Inc. Authors Bruce Kushnick Executive Director, New Networks Assisted by David C. Bergmann Telecom Policy Consulting for Consumers May 13, 2014 It’s All Interconnected. Major Sections § Introduction § Executive Summary § The Future of Telecommunications: Asserting and Regaining the Rights of Customers, Including Low-Income Consumers in New York State § Time to Clean House: Getting New York and America Wired, Opening the Networks to Competition and Protecting the Rights of Customers § A Brief History of Residential, Fiber Optic Broadband in New York State § Implications of the Report’s Findings: Legal and Regulatory Issues § Data and Research — Verizon NY's Financial Relationships with Customers and with Verizon’s Affiliate Companies: Verizon Online, Verizon Business, and Verizon Services, et al. § SPECIAL SECTION: Time Warner and the Social Contract § APPENDIX 1 — About the Authors and Organizations § APPENDIX 2 — Descriptions of Verizon NY and its Affiliate Companies § APPENDIX 3 — Time Line of Verizon NY’s Deregulatory Orders For More Information: § Gerald A. Norlander, [email protected] § Bruce Kushnick, [email protected] § David Bergmann, [email protected] Acknowledgements: PULP analysts include William Yates. New Networks’ experts and advisors include Fred Goldstein, Alexander Goldman, W. Scott McCollough, Esq, Dana Spiegel, Chuck Sherwood, Paul Hartman, Joly MacFie, and Thomas Allibone. 2 It’s All Interconnected. PART I Introduction 1.0 Introduction This report supplies previously unexamined data and new analysis based on primary source information from Verizon New York (VNY) and offers a new alternative path to the future of communications in New York State and the rest of the country. It is focused on residential low income customer issues, but also generally addresses Verizon New York’s communications services in New York State. This includes deployment of advanced services, network investment and maintenance, trends in subscribership for telephone and availability of broadband services, prices paid by low-income Lifeline-eligible customers, the implications of business practices for residential and business customers, and recommendations for action and increased public oversight. VNY is the incumbent provider of telecommunications services for most of New York State. The networks over which these services ride is commonly known as the Public Switched Telephone Networks (“PSTN”) or “the utility” networks.1 In addition to telephone service, Verizon provides broadband and Internet services via Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) and FiOS products, including cable television service in localities where it has cable television franchises. Wireless services are provided by its affiliate Verizon Wireless. Appendix 2 gives full descriptions of Verizon Communications, the holding company (“Verizon Corporate”), VNY and Verizon’s primary affiliates that do business with VNY. Verizon NY has been allowed to raise rates for the basic telephone phone and ancillary services of the utility residential “Plain Old Telephone Services” (“POTS”) by the NYPSC multiple times. Starting in 2006 prices increased 84% for basic service. Inside wire maintenance and other services like non-published numbers increased 100%-300%. These increases were permitted by regulators because of expected ‘massive deployment in fiber optics’ and perceived need for ‘financial relief’ from losses. From 2009-2013, Verizon New York reported losses of over $11 billion dollars, with an income tax benefit to Verizon Communications of $5 billion. Thus, VNY paid no state of Federal income tax for the last five years or more. 1 Note: Verizon New York has had other names in the past. In 1984, NYNEX was created and controlled New York Telephone, which became NYNEX-New York. Then NYNEX merged with Bell Atlantic in 1997 and the state-based utility became Bell Atlantic-New York. Bell Atlantic merged with GTE and created Verizon Communications, in 2000, and the new name was Verizon New York. 3 It’s All Interconnected. The deployment of FiOS started in the 2005-2007 timeframe in earnest. But by 2010, Verizon Corporate announced that it would stop expanding Verizon FiOS services, except for commitments within its existing TV franchise areas.2 And in the areas that were not upgraded, Verizon Wireless has a marketing agreement with cable companies to bundle Verizon Wireless’ service with the cable companies’ wired cable, phone, broadband and Internet service.3 Then in 2012, Verizon announced plans to ‘‘kill the copper,’’ referring to the wireline service received by most VNY telephone customers.4 Wireline customers in upgraded areas would be migrated to FiOS; customers outside those areas would be relegated to wireless services, starting with areas where the company has decided it does not want to upgrade to FiOS and does not want to maintain copper line service. On May 7th 2014, Verizon New York filed with the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau a “Short Term Network Change Notification”, which states “Verizon plans to retire copper facilities (feeder, distribution and loops) and to serve all customers over a fiber infrastructure,” in Bell Harbor Queens, New York City. Verizon also filed for an area in Virginia.)5 It is too soon to know if there will be legal challenges against this practice.6 Verizon has also been seeking deregulation in New York State to remove or lessen regulation of local telephone service (and other services), citing as justification competition and customer migration to “IP” (Internet protocol-based) telephone service and wireless services. This same deregulation effort is also occurring on the federal level at the FCC, currently driven by AT&T’s petition to start trials based on the advent of IP-based services.7 2 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303410404575151773432729614. 3 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/story/2012-08-16/Verizon-cable- companies/57093934/1 4 http://www.media-alliance.org/downloads/Verizon_Kill_Copper.pdf. 5 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-326960A1.docx 6 Different parts of VNY’s services and business practices are controlled by different laws and regulations. VNY’s utility networks and local service are regulated by the New York Public Service Commission, (“NYPSC”), while the FCC has jurisdiction over services defined as “interstate”. Telecommunications services are regulated under the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (as amended in 1996), while other activities of the company fall under state corporation law, local municipality regulations, the Securities and Exchange (“SEC’) laws and even the IRS. Continuing deregulation and the transition to Internet-based services (known as “IP” for “Internet Protocol”) have resulted in regulations, oversight and obligations that are now in flux.. 7 http://connected.att.com/external/publicpolicyviewsnews/WMU_FN_ATT_Reply_Comments_4_9_2014.pdf. 4 It’s All Interconnected. It’s All Interconnected: The Alternative Path This report is designed to be a data and research resource for advocates, politicans, regulators and concerned citizens and relies on Verizon’s own data as the primary source of information. It lays the groundwork for next steps, which will be announced over the next few months. This report has seven basic parts: § Executive Summary — Highlights of the primary findings § PULP WHITE PAPER The Future of Telecommunications: Asserting and Regaining the Rights of Customers, Including Low-Income Consumers In New York State — Using Verizon data, recommendations are made for the public interest, focusing on Verizon’s low-income customers. § NEW NETWORK WHITE PAPER Time to Clean House: Getting New York and America Wired, Opening the Networks to Competition and Protecting the Rights of Customers — Based on Verizon’s financial statements and business practices, recommendations focus on the broader issues of the telecommunications landscape, the impacts on the deployment of broadband, and competition in New York City, New York State, with the goal of creating change. § A Brief History of Residential Fiber Optic Broadband in New York State § Implications of the Report’s Findings: Legal and Regulatory Issues § Verizon New York Data and Research — This report relies on Verizon-supplied information and examines VNY’s financial statements, based on Verizon’s own SEC- filed state-based reports, VNY’s financial annual reports submitted to the New York State Public Service Commission (“NYSPSC”), the FCC’s Automated Reporting Management Information System “ARMIS” and “Statistics of Common Carriers” (“SOCC”) reports, as well as related information, such as Verizon Communications’ financial information, the companies’ statements, and transcripts of investor briefings. § SPECIAL SECTION: Time Warner and the Social Contract 5 It’s All Interconnected. Page Numbers Page 1.0 Introduction 3 1.1 Executive Summary 16 1.2 The Future of Telecommunications: Asserting and Regaining 23 the Rights of Customers, Including Low-Income Consumers in NY State 29 1.3 Time to Clean House: Getting NY and America Wired, Opening the Networks to Competition and Protecting the Rights of Customers 39 1.4 A Brief History of Broadband Deployment in New York State 44 1.5 Implications of the Report’s Findings: Legal and Regulatory Issues 51 Part II Verizon New York Rate Increases
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for an Investigation of Verizon New Jersey's Financials
    New Networks STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE INC.’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ) OPPORTUNITY NEW JERSEY COMMITMENTS ) DOCKET NO. TO12020155 DISSOLVE THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY. 1) OPRA (OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) REQUESTS 2) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY UPGRADE THE STATE–BASED UTILITY PLANT 3) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY’S MASS CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WITH VERIZON’S AFFILIATES, INCLUDING VERIZON INTERNET, VERIZON BUSINESS, VERIZON LONG DISTANCE, AMONG OTHERS 4) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER TIES BETWEEN VERIZON NEW JERSEY AND VERIZON WIRELESS 5) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION: CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL VERIZON’S AFFILIATE COMPANIES’ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING FIOS CABLE TV, INTERNET, BROADBAND, WIRELESS, AND OTHER LINES OF BUSINESS Submitted by: Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Tom Allibone Director of Audits, Teletruth President, LTC Consulting, a New Jersey firm Alexander Goldman, Law Student, Brooklyn Law School Contacts: [email protected], [email protected], 1 New Networks Statement: New Networks & Teletruth requests that the proposed Stipulation Agreement between Verizon New Jersey and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) be dissolved immediately, our OPRA requests be upheld, and an investigation start immediately. The State should then require Verizon New Jersey to either wire 100% of their state territory, as required by law, with a fiber optic service capable 45 Mbps in both directions; or start a proceeding to give back the billions collected, including damages to every Verizon customer.
    [Show full text]
  • World's Biggest Challenges
    FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE WORL D’S BIGGEST CH A L L E N GES DESERVE EVEN BIGGER SOLUTIONS. { POWERFUL ANSWERS } FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS $115.8 $33.4 $0.90 $2.20 $2.24 $1.975 $2.030 $110.9 $31.5 $0.85 $2.15 $1.925 $106.6 $29.8 $0.31 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS REPORTED ADJUSTED DIVIDENDS REVENUES FROM OPERATING DILUTED EARNINGS DILUTED EARNINGS DECLARED PER (BILLIONS) ACTIVITIES PER SHARE PER SHARE SHARE (BILLIONS) (NON-GAAP) CORPORATE HIGHLIGHTS • $15.3 billion in free cash flow (non-GAAP) • 8.4% growth in wireless retail service revenue • 4.5% growth in operating revenues • 607,000 FiOS Internet subscriber net additions • 13.2% total shareholder return • 553,000 FiOS Video subscriber net additions • 3.0% annual dividend increase • 17.2% growth in FiOS revenue • 5.9 million wireless retail connection net additions • 6.3% growth in Enterprise Strategic Services revenue • 0.91% wireless retail postpaid churn Note: Prior-period amounts have been reclassified to reflect comparable results. See www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures included in this annual report. In keeping with Verizon’s commitment to protect the environment, this report was printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By selecting FSC-certified paper, Verizon is making a difference by supporting responsible forest management practices. Chairman’s LETTER Dear Shareowner, 2012 was a year of accelerating momentum, for Verizon and the communications industry. The revolution in mobile, broadband and cloud networks picked up steam—continuing to disrupt and transform huge sectors of our society, from finance to entertainment to healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly : Situated, : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : V
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER KELLY, : Individually and on behalf of all others similarly : Situated, : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : v. : : NO. 16-5672 VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, et al., : : Defendants. : Mitchell S. Goldberg, J. February 11, 2019 MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Christopher Kelly, the sole named plaintiff in a putative class of individuals, has sued Defendants Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC (“Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC”), Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership (“Verizon Online”), and Verizon Pennsylvania (“Verizon Pennsylvania”) (collectively, “Verizon” or “Defendants”). Plaintiff claims that Defendants misrepresented to Verizon FiOS Quantum television customers that they must lease multiple set- top boxes in order to access FiOS on multiple televisions in a household. Plaintiff originally commenced this lawsuit on September 28, 2016, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. Defendants timely removed the action on October 31, 2016, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff now seeks to remand the action back to state court. For the reasons set forth herein, I will deny the Motion. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint According to the Complaint, Verizon is a leading provider of television programming, known as “FiOS,” supplied to customers across the country, including Pennsylvania. As of February 2016, FiOS was the largest provider of fiber optic broadband in the United States. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Verizon requires its FiOS customers to lease a “set-top” box for each television to be connected to Verizon’s broadband network, and customers are assessed recurring fees for the use of these devices.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of VERIZO WJRELE
    PUBLIC VERSION CONFIDENTIAL VERSION FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER Before the Federal Commtmications Commission Washington D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) WCDocketNo.09-197 Federal-State Joint Board ) on Universal Service ) CELLCO PARTNERSIDP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS 2010 ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER CERTIFICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STUDY AREA CODE (SAC) 1990141 OCTOBER 1, 2010 VERIZO WJRELE John T. Scott, ill Stephen B. Rowell . 1300 I Street NW, Suite 400W Wasbjngton, D:C. 20005 (202) 589-3770 I Formerly SACs 199001 and 199006. PUBLIC VERSION CONFIDENTIAL VERSION FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.209, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates providing commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") in the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, "Verizon Wireless" or "Company"), submits this 2010 Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") Certification and Annual Report and respectfully requests that the Commission certify its continued eligibility to receive high-cost support from the federal universal service fund ("USF") during calendar year 2011. II. CONFIDENTIALITY The data in this report and the attached exhibits represent commercial and financial trade secrets regarding Verizon Wireless' network build-out plans and other matters that are highly sensitive due to the competitive nature of the CMRS industry. Accordingly, Verizon Wireless respectfully requests that the Commission treat this data as confidential and withhold it from public inspection pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457(d)(l) and 0.459. III. BACKGROUND In 2004, the Commission initially designated Alltel Communications, LLC 2 ("Alltel") as an ETC in certain non-rural telephone company wire centers pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • MCI Communications Services, Inc. D/B/A Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No
    MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) Effective August 8, 2016 Fourth Revision MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) This Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) sets forth the rates, terms and conditions of certain recent offerings available to enterprise customers (i.e., non-mass markets) of Verizon Business which are not otherwise described in the Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services), or described in the tariff on file with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Where applicable, the retail services described in this document were previously set forth in the Ohio Interexchange Services Tariff No. 2 of MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services. For ease of reference, where applicable the prior section numbers contained in the prior Tariff No. 2 has been retained. Also, the term “tariff” as used in this document, refers to this Catalog Schedule, unless context indicates otherwise. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. ____________________________________ MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) Effective August 8, 2016 CHANGE SHEET This sheet details the most recent revisions made to this Catalog Schedule. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. Revisions to Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2, Effective 8/8/16 Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.1 and 5 Effective on or after August 8, 2016, MCI Communications Services, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl M. Robinson, CDP Principal
    Earl M. Robinson, CDP Principal Mr. Robinson has over 40 years experience in the utility field and provides services relative to depreciation and cost-based valuation issues. He has testified before numerous regulatory agencies including state, federal, and property tax agencies throughout the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean. He co-authored “An Introduction to Net Salvage of Public Utility Plant”. Additionally, Mr. Robinson has made presentations to indus- try organizations on the subject of depreciation studies, as well as depreciated replacement cost to property tax appraiser staffs. EXPERIENCE 1977 to Date wastewater utilities. In conjunction with the provi- sion of these services, Mr. Robinson has testified on AUS Consultants. Various positions - currently Prin- many occasions before numerous regulatory agen- cipal. Mr. Robinson prepares studies and coordinated cies (including state, federal, and property tax agen- analyses related to valuation, depreciation, original cies throughout the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean in cost, trended original cost, cost of service, bill analy- support of the many studies completed for his diverse ses, as well as analyses of expenses, revenues and in- list of clients. In addition he has negotiated deprecia- come for various municipal and an extensive number tion rates with various state regulatory agencies, the of investor-owned electric, gas, water, wastewater, FCC Staff, and the FERC taff. Mr. Robinson has also and telecommunications utilities. participated in several FCC, state, company three-way depreciation re-prescription meetings. Studies prepared have required the review of compa- ny records, inspection of property, the preparation of With regard to valuation matters, Mr. Robinson has property inventories and original costs, preparation been involved with the development of cost indices and review of mortality studies, selection of proper from the earliest part of his career through the pres- service lives, life characteristics and analysis of sal- ent.
    [Show full text]
  • SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell Vice
    THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 9th Revised Title Page 2 Cancels 8th Revised Title Page 2 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell T Vice President, Marketing & Sales T Verizon Communications Inc. One Verizon Way, 2nd Floor T Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 T For Verizon Delaware Inc. Verizon Maryland Inc. Verizon New England Inc. Verizon New Jersey Inc. Verizon New York Inc. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Verizon Virginia Inc. Verizon Washington DC Inc. Verizon West Virginia Inc. Kelly Boggs Manager – Pricing BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 675 West Peachtree St. N.E., Room 34S91, Atlanta, Georgia 30375 For the States of: Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee This page filed under Transmittal No. 29 T The names, titles and address of the tariff's Issuing Officers are located on Title Pages 2 through 4 Issued: May 31, 2006 Effective: June 15, 2006 THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 10th Revised Title Page 4 Cancels 9th Revised Title Page 4 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Patrick Doherty T Director – Access Regulatory T AT&T Inc. T Four SBC Plaza, Room 1921, Dallas, Texas 75202 T For Ameritech Operating Companies Nevada Bell Telephone Company Pacific Bell Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company The Southern New England Telephone Company Susan S. Henson T Staff Advocate - Public Policy T on behalf of N Wendy M. Moser N Vice President - Public Policy N Qwest Corporation 1801 California Street, Room 4700, Denver, Colorado 80202 For the States of: Arizona Colorado Idaho Iowa Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming This page filed under Transmittal No.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Inter
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Interconnection to Providers of ) Enhanced Directory Assistance Service ) COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN I. Introduction and Summary The Verizon telephone companies (“Verizon”) hereby propose to offer comparably efficient interconnection (“CEI”) to competing providers of wholesale Enhanced Directory Assistance (“EDA”) Service.1 Verizon will comply fully with the nonstructural safeguards that apply to the offering of enhanced services on an integrated basis by the former Bell Operating Companies .2 One of these 1 This plan is being filed by the Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of Bell Atlantic Corporation and are identified in Attachment A. Other Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of GTE Corporation are not required to post a CEI plan before offering an enhanced service. 2 See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, (Computer III), CC Docket No. 85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) Reconsideration Order, second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase I Second Further Reconsideration), Phase I Order and Phase I Reconsideration Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), Phase II Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217; Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets.
    [Show full text]
  • Nextgen Communications, Inc. (Nextgen) Pa
    NextGen Communications, Inc. (NextGen) Pa. PUC Telephone Tariff No. 1 Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Original Title Page 0 NEXTGEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER Regulations and Schedule of Charges _________________________________________________________________ NextGen Communications, Inc. (Company) will mirror the exchange area boundaries as stated in the tariffs of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Telephone Pa. P.U.C. Nos. 180A, 182, 182A, 185B and 185C; Verizon North Inc. Telephone Pa P.U.C. Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6; The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink P.U.C. No. 27; and the remaining tariffs listed on Page 2 of this tariff. The Company’s tariff is in concurrence with all applicable State and Federal Laws (including, but not limited to, 52 Pa. Code, 66 Pa. C.S. and the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, and with the Commission’s applicable Rules and Regulations and Orders. Any provisions contained in this Tariff that are inconsistent with the foregoing mentioned will be deemed inoperative and superseded. Issued: December 9, 2010 Effective: December 10, 2010 Issued by: Bruce A. White, Secretary NextGen Communications, Inc. 275 West Street – Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 NextGen Communications, Inc. (NextGen) Pa. PUC Telephone Tariff No. 1 Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Original – Page 1 TARIFF REFERENCES Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Philadelphia Exchange Areas PA P.U.C. No. 182 Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Philadelphia Suburban Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No. 182A Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Pittsburgh Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No. 185B Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Pittsburgh Suburban Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse
    AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse ST Docket No. Docket Name Testimony Date PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Rejoinder Testimony 04/08/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Surrebuttal Testimony 04/01/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Rebuttal Testimony with 03/10/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Supplemental Direct 11/30//2009 Communications of Pennsylvania, Testimony with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Direct Testimony with 7/2/2009 Communications of Pennsylvania, Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2108186 Core Communications, Inc. v AT&T Reply Testimony with 12/14/2009 Communications of Pennsylvania D’Amico PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Direct Testimony with 12/10/2008 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Rebuttal Testimony with 01/15/2009 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Surrebuttal Testimony 02/10/2009 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll with Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA C-20027195 Access Complaint - AT&T Rebuttal Testimony with 07/18/2003 Communications of Pennsylvania, Kirchberger LLC v Verizon North Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Contents Page 1 D/B/A Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8
    PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Contents Page 1 d/b/a Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8. COIN TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTENTS Page No. S8.1 PUBLIC TELEPHONE ACCESS SERVICE (PTAS) S8.1.1 General 1 S8.1.2 Responsibility of the Customer 3 S8.1.3 Violations of Regulations 6 S8.1.4 Optional Service Features 7 S8.1.5 Rates and Charges 8 S8.1.6 Charges to PTAS End-User 11 S8.2 CUSTOMER-OWNED PAY TELEPHONE (COPT) COIN LINE SERVICE S8.2.1 Definitions and Requirements 12 S8.2.2 Features 13 S8.2.3 Responsibility of the Subscriber 13 S8.2.4 Rates and Charges 14 PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Page 1 d/b/a Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8. COIN TELEPHONE SERVICE S8.1 Public Telephone Access Service (PTAS) S8.1.1 General a. Public Telephone Access Service (PTAS) for customer-provided pay telephones is an exchange service line directly connected to the public network and provided at the request of the customer for telecommunications use by the general public at locations accessible to the general public. Extensions of the PTAS lines are not permitted. b. PTAS lines are provided for use with both customer- provided non-coin-operated pay telephones and customer-provided coin-operated pay telephones, as well as customer-provided equipment or processes used for the resale and transmittal of voice or data over the public switched network. c. PTAS is provided subject to the condition that telephone messages (local and long distance) placed from stations which are accessible to the public are completed over PTAS lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department
    SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 29, 2009 THE COURT ANNOUNCES THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: Gonzalez, P.J., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ. 332 The People of the State of New York, Ind. 3727/05 Respondent, -against- David Diaz, Defendant-Appellant. David Segal, New York, for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered February 8, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 7 years, affirmed. Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree after 253 packets of crack cocaine worth $3,000 were found in a hidden compartment of a minivan that was driven, but not owned, by defendant. The People prosecuted on a theory of constructive possession. We find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed crack cocaine and that the crack cocaine he possessed weighed at least four ounces (see Penal Law § 220.18[1]). Moreover, we find the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress on grounds of an illegal search. Testimony at the suppression hearing established that on July 21, 2005, Officer Angel Torres of the Manhattan Gang Squad spotted a double-parked minivan, with its engine running, at the corner of W. 152nd Street and Broadway, a known drug-prone area. Torres observed defendant exit the vehicle from the driver's seat to scrape off a Sanitation Department sticker from the vehicle's window with a razor blade.
    [Show full text]