PAULA M. CARMODY STATE OF MARYLAND ASSISTANT PEOPLE’S COUNSEL PEOPLE’S COUNSEL WILLIAM F. FIELDS THERESA V. CZARSKI GARY L. ALEXANDER DEPUTY PEOPLE’S COUNSEL RONALD HERZFELD JOSEPH G. CLEAVER
MOLLY G. KNOLL JACOB M. OUSLANDER
JOYCE R. LOMBARDI OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL MIKHAIL RAYKHER
6 Saint Paul Street, Suite 2102 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 767-8150 (800) 207-4055 FAX (410) 333-3616 WWW.OPC.STATE.MD.US
January 13, 2017
David J. Collins, Executive Secretary Maryland Public Service Commission 6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Collins:
Enclosed for filing, please find an original and seventeen (17) copies of the Petition Of The Maryland Office Of People’s Counsel For An Investigation Into Verizon Maryland’s Provision Of Basic Local Phone Service Over Copper Or Fiber Neworks.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
/electronic signature/ Joyce R. Lombardi Assistant People’s Counsel
JRL/bl Enclosure cc: Suzan D. Paiva, Assistant General Counsel - Verizon Leslie M. Romine, Staff Counsel – Maryland Public Service Commission Annette Garofalo, Staff Attorney – Maryland Public Service Commission Vincent Trivelli, Counsel – Communications Workers of America
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
PETITION OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO VERIZON MARYLAND’S PROVISION OF BASIC LOCAL PHONE SERVICE OVER COPPER OR FIBER NETWORKS
Dated: January 13, 2017
Contents
I. SUMMARY ...... 3
II. BACKGROUND ...... 8
III. 1,200 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS SHOW A PATTERN OF NEGLECT AND
WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION ...... 12
A. Poor Service Quality ...... 13
1. Evidence of neglect or de facto retirement ...... 14
2. Service Quality in Rural and Other Non-fiber parts of Maryland...... 17
B. Forced Migration To Fiber ...... 21
C. Forced migration to/upselling of unregulated Digital Voice or to wireless VoiceLink . 23
IV. CONCLUSION...... 26
1
PETITION OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO VERIZON MARYLAND’S PROVISION OF BASIC LOCAL PHONE SERVICE OVER COPPER OR FIBER NETWORKS
The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (“OPC”), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby requests, pursuant to Maryland Code Ann., Public Utilities Article (“PUA”) §2-204(a), that the
Maryland Public Service Commission (“PSC” or the “Commission”) open an investigation into the practices of Verizon Maryland, LLC (“Verizon” or “the Company”) related to its provision of basic local exchange service over its copper network. Attached to this Petition and incorporated by reference is the Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin (“Baldwin Affidavit”) and her
Appendices A through E. (Exh. 1). OPC’s concerns include but are not limited to: 1) Verizon’s copper voice service quality in fiber and non-fiber areas of the state; 2) how it is transitioning customers to its regulated fiber network in some parts of the state, and 3) its aggressive upselling of and/or unauthorized migration to its unregulated voice services throughout the state.
OPC previously filed a Petition with the Commission to review (and suspend) Verizon’s notices of copper retirement (“OPC Copper Notice Petition”).1 Although the Commission
subsequently ordered that Verizon, Staff and OPC convene in response to that petition “for the
purpose of discussing and developing changes to the Company’s Maryland-specific notices,
including any general information sent regarding copper retirement, service over fiber, and
battery backup,” 2 the current Petition exceeds the scope of that order. Given the long history and nature of the complaints detailed in this Petition and attached exhibits, OPC believes that a
1 Petition for an Investigation into the Copper Retirement Notices Sent by Verizon, Maryland LLC to Maryland Retail, Customers and Request for Immediate Suspension of those Notices Pending an Investigation (Mail Log No. 202479) October 28, 2016. 2 Commission Letter Order dated December 14, 2016 (Mail Log No. 206676). 2
docketed Commission investigation, with full discovery, is necessary and appropriate to ensure
that satisfactory basic telephone service is provided to Verizon’s residential telephone customers,
and that they are protected from unreliable service, wrongful migration to unregulated services,
and -- for those customers with specific needs not met by the fiber network -- unnecessary or premature migration to regulated fiber service
I. SUMMARY
Verizon Maryland is Maryland’s predominant regulated telephone company, its
incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC). Verizon provides several voice services in Maryland:
1) regulated telephone voice service over traditional copper landlines, often called “plain old
telephone service” or POTS; 2) regulated fiber voice over its fiber network; 3) FiOS® digital
voice, which is a specific type of voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and is also provided over
Verizon’s fiber network but is unregulated; and 4) wireless (cell phone) voice, or Voice Link,
which is provided over a wireless network but is not expressly regulated.3
Regulated Network
Copper voice yes copper
Fiber voice yes fiber
FiOS® Digital Voice no fiber
Voice Link no4 wireless
3 FiOS® is the trade name given to Verizon’s fiber-optic communications network to the premises, which can provide voice, video and data services on a stand-alone basis or as a bundled service (the so-called “Triple Play”). Verizon’s TV and Internet services can be bundled with regulated fiber voice, regulated copper voice or unregulated FiOS digital voice. 4 While wireless voice is not regulated, see PUA §1-101(ll)(2), the Commission has not yet determined if Verizon may replace a regulated service with a wireless Voice Link product. See Baldwin Affidavit at p. 17. 3
Verizon’s regulated voice services are subject to an alternative form of regulation
(AFOR) authorized by the General Assembly and approved by the Commission. As a public service company, Verizon must “furnish equipment, services, and facilities that are safe, adequate, just, reasonable, economical, and efficient.”5 Further, while Verizon has been granted flexibility over time in terms of the types of services subject to regulation and the pricing of those services, the “quality, availability, and reliability of telecommunication services throughout the State” must be maintained.6 More specifically, these requirements apply to
Verizon’s regulated basic local telephone service, however it is provided.7 That is the quid pro quo of this grant of permissive alternative regulation by the State.
Unlike other states that have given up on regulating basic telephone service, Maryland has chosen to maintain regulatory oversight over this essential service.8 The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Verizon’s equipment, services and facilities are provided and maintained properly. The obligations of Verizon, as the regulated company, and the
Commission, as the state regulatory agency, are not diminished because of the technology transitions that we are undergoing in the telecommunications arena or by the rulings of the
5 Maryland Code Ann., Public Utilities Article (“PUA”), Section 5-303. As part of its AFOR, Verizon is subject to service quality standards for retail customers set forth in by the Commission in 2010. See Order 83137 issued in: Case No. 9072, In The Matter of the Request of Verizon Maryland Inc. to Reclassify Certain Retail Bundled Services to the Competitive Services Basket As Provided By the Commission’s Price Cap Plan, Case No. 9114, In the Matter of Commission’s Investigation into Verizon Maryland, Inc.’s Service Performance and Service Quality Standards, Case No. 9123 ,In the Matter of Commission’s Inquiry into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service Over Fiber Optic Facilities; Case No. 9133, In the Matter of Appropriate Forms of Regulating Telephone Companies, et al; In Re Verizon Maryland Inc., 279 P.U.R.4th 504 (February 2, 2010) Mail Log 121510. 6 PUA § 4-301(b)(1). 7 Regulated basic telephone service does not include wireless telephone service, or voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service. See PUA § 8-602. 8 Indeed, the Maryland legislature has declined legislation that would deregulate Maryland’s telephone service, such as House Bill 472 or Senate Bill 577 in 2015. Also, in a report commissioned by the Maryland General Assembly, Commission Staff opined that carriers should not be allowed to withdraw basic local service and 911 services at this time and that Verizon must provide basic local service to all customers who request it. Retail Service Withdrawals within the Telecommunications Industry (December 2015), Mail Log No. 178776. 4
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regarding these transitions, including the
retirement of copper facilities.9
Verizon has installed fiber facilities, as a supplement or alternative to copper facilities, in
about half of the geographic area of the State. The remaining half, in Baltimore City and the
more rural areas of the State, has only copper facilities. As discussed more specifically in this
Petition and the Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin, consumer complaints indicate that Verizon has
engaged in a pattern of failing, whether by neglect or with intention, to repair and maintain
facilities used to provide basic telephone service to households in Maryland. The result has
been an apparent deterioration of service, despite the fact that these facilities are paid for by
Verizon residential customers who rely on these services in their day-to-day lives.
OPC has reviewed over 1,200 consumer complaints submitted to the Maryland Public
Service Commission, as well as to the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Montgomery
County Office of Consumer Protection, Howard County Office of Consumer Affairs, Howard
County Office of Cable Administration between 2011 and the present.10 OPC has also received a
number of complaints directly from consumers. The similarity and nature of the complaints over
the years extend beyond the realm of mere anecdote or isolated incident, and suggest a pattern
that deserves regulatory attention. As OPC telecommunications expert Susan Baldwin points out,
9 In Order 83137 dated February 10,2010, at pages 60-61, as part of a resolution of global issues in several Verizon dockets, the Commission determined that it would be premature to establish a work group to address copper retirement rules since Verizon had not retired any of its copper network and could not do so until it had built a fiber network. Those circumstances obviously have changed since then. See PSC Cases 9072, et al. 10 Numerous excerpts of the complaints to the PSC are in Appendices B and C of Susan Baldwin’s Affidavit. Complaints from the other agencies are excerpted in Appendices D and E of Ms. Baldwin’s Affidavit. Due to the volume of the material, not all of the complaints to the Commission are attached to this filing. OPC requests that the Commission take judicial notice of complaints made to its Office of External Relations between 2011 and the present related to a) service quality issues with Verizon’s copper telephone service; b) service quality and/or customer service issues relating to the migration of copper telephone service to regulated fiber voice or unregulated voice services. These complaints may include, but are not limited to internal OER codes 1136 (repair disputes) 7177 (provision of copper v. fiber telephone service); and 3333 (FiOS disputes/comments). Should the Commission prefer, however, OPC, can furnish hard copies of the complaints. 5
“the complaint process necessarily shifts the burden to consumers…[whereas] comprehensive
regulatory remedies that can prevent the seeming service quality deterioration would be
preferable ..to protect consumers.”11
The Communications Workers of America (“CWA”), the union that represents the
Verizon technicians and employees in the field, has filed with the Commission several letters requesting an investigation of Verizon’s practices regarding the maintenance of the copper network and handling of customer service complaints regarding the copper facilities.12 While the
subject matter of this Petition may overlap in some respects with the CWA Requests for
Investigation, and in fact are supported by CWA’s allegations, OPC has submitted this separate
Petition on behalf of the residential telephone consumers who are directly affected by Verizon’s practices.
OPC requests that the Commission docket a proceeding to investigate the following:
1. Whether Verizon has failed to maintain basic telephone service quality, availability and reliability over its copper network in non-fiber areas of the state.
In those parts of the state where Verizon has not deployed fiber/FiOS® (and has no plans to do so), including the Eastern Shore, southern Maryland, western Maryland, and Baltimore City, the Commission should investigate consumers’ allegations of Verizon’s refusal to repair and maintain its copper network violate, or its delays in doing so. These allegations point to possible violations of Verizon’s duty to provide reliable basic phone service, as well as service
11 Susan M. Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, at p. 2. 12 See Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) – Request for Investigation into Verizon Maryland Service Performance and Service Quality Standards, Case No. 9133 and 9114 (Mail Log No. 174213) September 2, 2015; CWA Request for Investigation (Mail Log No. 177812), November 16, 2015; CWA Request for Investigation (Mail Log No. 183534) February 16, 2016; CWA Request for Investigation (Mail Log No. 189956) May 03, 2016; CWA Response to Petition of OPC Copper Retirement Notices (Mail Log No. 204370) November 16, 2016. In its September 2, 2015 letter, the CWA observed that Verizon’s practices result in “frequent and repeated service outages, trouble reports, long delays in service restoration and other service-impacting problems.” Of particular note is the exhibit attached to CWA’s May 3, 2016 Letter, which contains protocols and scripts for Verizon service technicians, as part of a “Fiber Is the Only Fix” program. 6
quality standards in, e.g., Maryland Code Ann, Public Utilities Article (PUA) §§ 4-301(b) and 5-
303; Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 20.45.01 et seq., and may constitute a
discontinuance of local service under COMAR 20.45.04.13.
2. Whether Verizon has failed to maintain basic service quality, availability and reliability over its copper network in areas of the State where it has deployed fiber facilities.
OPC has identified numerous complaints about Verizon’s failure to maintain the copper
facilities in those parts of the state where Verizon has deployed fiber facilities, but has not yet issued notice of retirement to customers or filed with the FCC its intent to retire those copper facilities. The Commission should investigate whether Verizon is otherwise letting its copper network lapse during the technology transition, thus constituting a de facto retirement in violation of its service quality obligations.
3. Whether Verizon’s history of unauthorized migration of customers’ copper- based phone services to its fiber network violates Maryland law and/or new FCC rules.
In those parts of the state where Verizon has deployed fiber and intends to migrate
customers from copper to fiber facilities (as the FCC’s rules permit), but has not yet filed
notice with the FCC of its intent to do so, the consumer complaints raise the concern whether
continuing allegations of Verizon’s unauthorized migration of customers to its fiber network
violates FCC rules on wholesale community retirement. Consumer complaints reviewed by
OPC show a pattern of forced migrations to the fiber network that was initiated well before
the FCC issued its copper retirement rules in 2015.13
13 See Baldwin Affidavit at pp. 18-22; In the Matter of Technology Transitions Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers AT&T Corporation, Petition for Rulemaking to Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, GN Docket No. 13-5; RM-11358; WC Docket No. 05-25; and RM- 10593, Tech Order (Rel. August 7, 2015); In the Matter of Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, PS Docket 14-174, FCC-15-98; (Rel. August 7, 2015). 7
4. Whether Verizon’s forced migration to or its aggressive promotion of its unregulated digital voice service, or its wireless (cell phone) voice service violates Maryland law.
Some consumer complaints raise the concern that Verizon has migrated, or attempted to
migrate, customers from regulated copper telephone service to an unregulated FiOS® digital
voice service, or even its wireless Voice Link service, without their full knowledge or consent.14
At a minimum, these practices could violate Verizon’s duty to provide basic local telephone
service pursuant to Maryland Code Ann, Public Utilities Article (PUA) § 4-301(b) and its duty to
inform customers of migration to an unregulated service pursuant to PUA § 8-602(c), and may
constitute a discontinuance under Maryland or federal law.15
II. BACKGROUND
OPC is an independent government agency with a statutory duty to represent the interests
of Maryland’s consumers of regulated telephone services.16
Verizon is a telephone company that provides regulated basic telephone service to
residential consumers in Maryland, and is a public service company subject to the regulatory
authority of the Commission.17 As a public service company, Verizon must “furnish equipment, services, and facilities that are safe, adequate, just, reasonable, economical, and efficient.”18
Further, while Verizon is subject to an alternative form of regulation (AFOR) authorized by the
14 Many of the complaints OPC reviewed incorrectly use the term “FiOS” to refer to both Verizon’s regulated fiber voice service and its unregulated fiber digital voice. OPC has sought to distinguish the terms in the complaints where possible. Also, Verizon’s FiOS digital voice, which operates over a fiber network, is not the same as Verizon’s wireless Voice Link service. 15 See Baldwin Affidavit at p. 28. 16 Maryland Code Ann., Public Utilities Article (PUA) §2-204. 17 See PUA § 1-101(x)(1)(defining public service company); PUA § 1-101(ll)(1) (defining telephone company); and PUA § 2-112 (defining powers of the Commission). 18 PUA § 5-303. 8
General Assembly and approved by the Commission, the “quality, availability, and reliability of
telecommunication services throughout the State” provided by Verizon must be maintained.19
Verizon’s service quality standards are also regulated by COMAR 20.45.05 et seq., and its
customer relations by COMAR 20.45.04 et seq. Verizon is also subject to the terms of its Service
Quality Plan for retail and business customers, and other service requirements, as delineated by
the Commission in various dockets.20
These requirements apply to Verizon’s regulated basic local telephone service, however it
is provided. That is the quid pro quo of this grant of permissive alternative regulation by the
State.
Verizon’s service delivery, however, has not been smooth. Over the past several years,
there have been several investigations into and/or clarifications of Verizon’s practices, including service quality performance and reporting. For example, the Commission began investigating
Verizon’s customer service quality and repair practices in 2008 under Case No. 9133.21 The
Commission also opened an investigation into Verizon’s misleading marketing of its fiber and
FiOS® services in 2007and 2008 under Case No. 9123.22
In 2010, the Commission consolidated numerous Verizon dockets and made multiple findings in Order 83137.23 Among other things, the Commission found persistent and
19 PUA § 4-301(b). 20 See Order 83137. 21 See, generally, the docket under Case No. 9133, In The Matter Of Appropriate Forms Of Regulating Telephone Companies, as initiated by the Maryland Public Service Commission; Order 81766 (January 3, 2008). 22 See, generally, the docket under Case No. 9123, In the Matter of Commission’s Inquiry into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service Over Fiber Optic Facilities as initiated by Office of People's Counsel’s Request for an Investigation (Mail Log No. 107092), August 9, 2007. Around the same time, Maryland Office of the Attorney General began investigating Verizon’s allegedly deceptive marketing and billing practices related to the initial roll-out of its unregulated FiOS® Internet, TV and telephone services. That investigation apparently ended in a settlement in 2014. Sherman, Natalie, “Verizon to pay $1.375 million to settle FiOS investigation,” Baltimore Sun, (November 12, 2014) http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/consuming-interests-blog/bs-bz-digest-verizon-settlement-20141112- story.html. 23 Order 83137, Case No. 9072 et al. 9 unacceptable service and repair practices to Verizon’s copper customers during Verizon’s
FiOS® roll-out,24 stating that:
Verizon's delays in restoring residential service derived from business decisions to allocate resources to goals other than residential service restoration, such as restoring service to business customers, building its FiOS®-branded fiber network or enhancing profitability through job reductions. We found as well that Verizon had met its “missed appointments” requirements since our investigation started only by stretching standard appointment times far beyond anything remotely compliant with the eight-hour rule. Neither the pending case nor steps Verizon promised to take has made much difference. And in trends that continued through the April 6 Order and continue to this day, Verizon's residential service restoration time has not improved, and its standard appointment times remain unacceptably long.
In Order 83137, the Commission emphasized its “continuing authority to measure, scrutinize and address Verizon’s conduct against existing regulatory standards,” a fact that
Verizon acknowledged repeatedly during the hearings.25 The Commission also required Verizon to submit an annual operational plan and monthly performance metrics.26
Stating that it had met its obligations, Verizon sought leave to stop reporting its annual retail service quality performance in 2012.27 However, after intervention from Staff, Verizon agreed, on a voluntary basis, “to provide Staff with monthly reports showing its retail service quality performance for March 2014 through October 2014 and file with the Commission (on a proprietary basis and independent of any docketed case) monthly reports showing its retail
24 See Order 83137 at p. 6. 25 Order 83137 at p. 4. 26Order 83137 at p. 33 (stating that, e.g., Verizon must clear at least 80% of residential voice out-of-service network trouble reports within 48 hours and 95% within 96 hours every quarter); at p. 42 (service quality in Verizon’s service territories, Baltimore Metropolitan, Eastern Shore, Patuxent, Western Maryland cannot lag behind statewide service standards by more than about eleven percent). 27 See Order 87185 at p. 5, n. 15, Case No. 8916 and 9133, In the Matter of the Commissions Consideration of the Maryland Carrier-to-Carrier Guidelines, Performance Standards & Reports; & the Performance Assurance Plan of Verizon Maryland Inc. in the Matter of Appropriate Forms of Regulating Tel. Companies (Oct. 8, 2015) Order No. 87185, Case No. 8916 and 9133, In the Matter of the Commissions Consideration of the Maryland Carrier-to- Carrier Guidelines, Performance Standards & Reports; & the Performance Assurance Plan of Verizon Maryland Inc. in the Matter of Appropriate Forms of Regulating Tel. Companies, (Oct. 8, 2015) (citing Staff January 2013 Request for Clarification for Verizon’s Filing Requirements. (Mail Log. No. 144587). 10 service quality reports for November 2014 through December 2015.”28 OPC does not receive copies of these monthly reports, and neither Staff nor the Commission has made any public findings on these reports. Neither these monthly reports, nor the quarterly ones required under
COMAR, Title 20, Subtitle 45, are made available to the public.
While Verizon has in the past met customer service quality metrics promulgated in 2010, those metrics do not capture all of the issues reflected in customer complaints to the
Commission. They do not capture unauthorized migrations to regulated or unregulated voice products, for example, nor do broad quotas provide relief to current or future complainants as individuals, nor inform the Commission of whether and how Verizon is planning to improve its service quality over its copper or fiber networks.
Indeed, the telecommunications landscape has changed over the past seven years, now that Verizon’s copper to fiber transition is under way – a circumstance that was not present when
Order 83137 was issued. Verizon’s current service plan in Maryland may not adequately capture consumers’ current needs and experiences. Recognizing that “what had been an appropriate regulatory balance in 2010 might no longer be adequate,” the New York Public Service
Commission recently opened an investigation to determine, among other things, whether changes to Verizon’s quality oversight is necessary, and whether competition is still providing a sufficient incentive for Verizon to maintain is service quality.29
Verizon is also the current subject of investigations for failing to maintain its copper network in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In December, 2016, the New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities agreed to investigate copper-line service complaints, against Verizon Communications
28 See Order 87185, at p. 5. 29 See Baldwin Affidavit at pp. 23-24. 11
Inc. raised by more than a dozen towns in South Jersey.30 The towns alleged bad phone
connections, lost phone service during rain and fog, and slow Internet speeds. Also,
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) recently allowed CWA’s petition to hold evidentiary hearings on Verizon’s maintenance and service quality of its copper telephone network 31
The experiences of Maryland customers, like those in other states, show that Verizon’s
maintenance of its copper network, and its transitioning to fiber, are still areas ripe for regulatory
inquiry.
III. 1,200 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS SHOW A PATTERN OF NEGLECT AND WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
According to public documents, the Maryland Public Service Commission and other
government agencies have received at least 1,200 complaints between January 2011 to August
2016 (and up until recently) from consumers related to Verizon’s service quality, and its
authorized and/or unauthorized migration of copper customers to regulated or unregulated fiber
services.32
30 See Bob Fernandez, “Top BPU commissioner will head probe into Verizon's copper-line problems in South Jersey,” Philly.com, December 12, 2016, available at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Top-NJ-regulatory- commissioner-will-head-probe-into-Verizons-copper-service-problems-in-South-Jersey-.html. 31 See Baldwin Affidavit at p. 27; and Opinion and Order, Petition of Communications Workers of America for a Public, On-the-Record Commission Investigation of the Safety, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Service Provided by Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, P-2015-2509336 (April 21, 2016). Interestingly, in a different case, the Pennsylvania PUC also recently increased civil penalties from $3,750 to $4,750 against Verizon for failing, over at least five days, to repair the copper telephone service of an elderly and medically vulnerable household who made repeated service calls. Opinion and Order No. 1487986, Neil and Gilda Altman v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC , Case No. C-2015- 2515583, Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, (Order Adopted: October 27, 2016, Order Entered: November 18, 2016). Pa. PUC documents are available at http://www.puc.state.pa.us/about_puc/search_results.aspx. 32 See Baldwin Affidavit pp. 7-8. 12
A. Poor Service Quality
Most of the consumer complaints (over 870) filed with OER concerned poor or no dial tone on customers’ regulated basic voice services, identifying problems such as dead lines, hum, static, long repair times, and/or unresponsive customer service. These complaints occurred in both fiber and non-fiber (copper) areas of Verizon’s service territory. OPC’s review of complaints revealed that:
• Between 2011 and early 2014, the Commission’s Office of External Relations
(“OER”) received 717 complaints flagged as “1136,” i.e., “pertaining to inadequate
repair of residential copper dial tone lines” (and not also flagged as 7717, or
copper/fiber complaints).33
• Between January 2014 to October 2015, about half (about 77) of the 159 residential
complaints received by the Commission’s OER concerned dial tone problems, with
most (58) complaining of no dial tone at all.34 As Ms. Baldwin states, complaints of
no dial tone “may suggest defective or deteriorating outside cable plant that needs
repair.”35
o Twelve of the complainants experiencing poor service during that period
were vulnerable, either by age or medical condition, making their need for
functioning telephone service more dire.36
• Between October 2, 2015 and August 8, 2016, approximately one-third (about 80) of
the 239 complaints which the PSC OER received concerned malfunctioning or non-
33 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, page 22. 34 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 3, page 11. 35 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, page 14. 36 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 4, page 13. 13
functioning dial tone lines.37 Of these, at least 15 were vulnerable, either by age or
medical condition.38
Service quality complaints in Maryland, detailed below show 1) evidence of neglect or de facto retirement, including the need for repeated calls for chronic problems, and Verizon’s flat refusal to fix fiber; 2) poor service quality in rural or non-FiOS® areas; and 3) generally poor customer service.
1. Evidence of neglect or de facto retirement
Repeated calls/chronic problems.
Many of the complaints detail chronic problems that require consumers to call again and again.39 In many cases, only with Commission intervention does Verizon invest in repairing the underlying issue. This pattern places an unfair burden on consumers to ensure they have access to basic telephone service, a service that in some cases, is life-saving. As OPC telecommunications expert, Susan Baldwin, states, even if there was a temporary fix to the problem, the number of complaints that “describe customers’ repeated efforts to obtain long-lasting repair of apparently defective cable…also suggest that if customers had not sought out the assistance of the PSC, the resolution would have taken even longer to occur.”40 Ms. Baldwin also found that the repairs, once a complaint is filed with OER, “are substantial, and include repairs to/from: rodent damage, cable pairs; outside/external wiring; pair crosses; cable connects; rewire/defective aerial cable; rehab
37 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 1, p. 7. 38 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 2, p. 8. 39 See, generally, examples of “temporary fix” and/or chronic problems in Baldwin Affidavit, Appendices B, C-1, C- 2, C-3 and D for illustrative complaints. 40 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, p. 4. 14 porting of cable; wet buried splice; line on ground (burying exposed lines); replace outside protectors, and damaged conduits.”41
Each set of complaints received from PIA requests over the years raises similar issues, including the ones from 2015 and 2016. For example, one consumer complained of “ongoing problems with static on the line and the phone going dead for years now.”42 The complaint alleges that, in the course of numerous service calls, several Verizon technicians informed her/him that “the main line that comes down the alley behind the house is damaged and in need of a repair…but Verizon never actually repairs the problem to the main line.” Only after the
OER received the complaint did Verizon repair a wet buried splice. Another caller, reported that
“for more than a year, Verizon technicians have been telling me that the cable from my pole to the junction box is defective,” and despite assurances from “Verizon’s retention department,” the cable was never been replaced.43 The issue apparently was resolved only after a complaint was filed with OER. In another instance, Verizon finally completed a rewire at the terminal pole after a consumer’s complaints of “major chronic noise/static issues.” 44In yet another case – where Verizon had made 21 repair attempts, the OER notes simply state that “Verizon acknowledged trouble history and customer can change to FiOS®.”45 There are similar complaints from the other years as well.46
41 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, p. 15. 42 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, p. 2, PIA response no. 17, Complaint 815217174, filed 08/25/15. 43 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 2, PIA response no. 74, Complaint number 516319119. 44 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 17, PIA response no. 237, Complaint number 1015218315. 45 See Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 9, PIA response no. 188, Complaint number 1215220536. The complaint was dated December 14, 2015, well before Verizon filed its notice of intent to replace copper wire with the FCC in September, 2016. Because there is no address with this complaint, it is not certain where this complainant resides. 46 See Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, at, e.g. p. 1 (“chronically unusable” phone service for six years); p. 6 (after PSC intervened, Verizon finally placed a permanent line and re-rerouted the line to bypass defective section of cable after resident had numerous repairs and complaints directly to Verizon) p. 7 (Verizon finally repaired defective aerial cable after complaints was filed); p. 7. 15
Although Verizon dismisses allegations of the Communications Workers of America
about Verizon’ “Fiber is the only fix” program as unfounded and mere negotiating tactics,47 consumer complaints to agencies are replete with statements that Verizon technicians are telling customers that “Verizon is not maintaining its copper lines.”48
Such chronic troubles and temporary fixes may violate the 8-hour, 24-hour and other
trouble reports requirements of COMAR 20.45.04.08, and may violate the terms of the current
service plan to which Verizon is subject. Although Verizon alleges that it is still meeting its
service obligations under COMAR and the service quality plan in Order 87185,49 those
unpublished metrics may not, as stated above in this Petition, fully capture Verizon’s
performance during this time of technology transfer.
Refusal to fix the copper network.
Several complaints in each set also allege that Verizon simply refuses to fix the copper
network. For example, one customer reported that his/her phone was out of service from May 14
to May 27, 2016 and, after making appointments for service that were never kept, Verizon finally
told the consumer that he/she had to switch to fiber.50 Another Maryland resident, whose parents
have suffered chronic and ongoing problems with their copper telephone service for two or three
years, despite numerous service calls, reports that a Verizon technician told him that they were
instructed not to fix the copper lines. 51 Another complainant, who cited Verizon’s “Fiber Is the
Only Fix” policy and whose copper service was out for a month, stated that Verizon refused to
47 See, e.g. Verizon’s response to OPC’s Copper Notice Petition at p. 12, filed 11/23/16 (Mail Log No. 205308). 48 See Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 9, PIA response no. 123, Complaint number 316316344. 49 Verizon Maryland LLC Responses to Communications Workers of America Letter. Case Nos. 9133 and 9114. (Mail Log No. 182512)(January 14, 2016). 50 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, pp. 1-2, PIA response no. 67, Complaint number 516319388. 51 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix D, pp. 8-9 (discussing complaint made to OPC on behalf of his aged parents, who live in Montgomery County). The same person also apparently complained to the PSC on October 20, 2016 with the same information, and was given complaint number 1016325114. 16
repair the lines “unless I convert the service to their FiOS®,” which he did not want.52 Another,
whose phone service was out from January 10, 2016 until February 24, 2016, wrote down the
names and identification numbers of two Verizon representatives who told him/her that “Verizon
will NOT fix the line and I need to get FiOS®.”53 These concerns echo those from the recent
past.54
Ms. Baldwin also cited at least two instances in which Verizon refused to install copper
on new accounts. For example, Verizon refused to install copper service in home of someone
who needed to install a handicap elevator, because the person had FiOS®. About a month after the complaint to PSC, Verizon installed copper.55
2. Service Quality in Rural and Other Non-fiber parts of Maryland.
Verizon has only deployed a fiber network in certain parts of the State. However,
significant portions of Maryland rely solely on existing copper telephone networks, especially
rural areas in southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, western Maryland, as well as Baltimore
City. As Ms. Baldwin states “While the discontinuance of [basic local exchange service] BLS
has yet to become widespread in Maryland, issues of copper retirement and basic service discontinuance are beginning to affect an increasing number of customers in Maryland and
nationwide as Verizon continues to migrate customers onto its more lucrative fiber and wireless
networks across the country.”56 The concern in Maryland, as elsewhere, is that if Verizon does
52 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, pp. 5, PIA response no. 81, Complaint number 516318917. 53 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, pp. 11, PIA response no. 147, Complaint number 21222167. 54 See Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-3 at p. 1 (three consumers alleging Verizon said they no longer maintain copper lines). 55 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, at p. 14. 56 Baldwin Affidavit, p. 6 (noting that “The complaints I reviewed span a diverse geographic area. The Maryland Public Service Commission did not provide addresses with complaints from 2014 to 2016. The fiber-related complaints, of course, were centered in areas where fiber has been deployed.”) 17
not eventually succeed in in its stated desire to withdraw basic phone service in Maryland,57 it
will cease to invest in copper infrastructure in Baltimore City and largely rural areas of the state
where it has no intention of deploying fiber, and either sell its holdings or attempt to migrate
customers directly to unregulated digital or wireless services.58
Although Verizon has recently alleged that its current copper retirement plans will “free
money and resources to be used to maintain copper facilities in areas with no fiber facilities,”59
Maryland’s consumers have no guarantee this will come to pass. Moreover, consumer complaints reviewed by OPC make it clear that Commission intervention in necessary to make sure Verizon is fulfilling its duties to the residents of the Eastern Shore, Western Maryland,
Baltimore City and other non-fiber areas.
Several Marylanders complaining of poor service apparently live in areas where there is no fiber available.60 For example:
• The PSC received a complaint in October 2015 from a resident of Talbot County, on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland, who stated that her/his landline “is out of service more than it
works,” and was told by Verizon workers that the problem was “a defective concentrator
at the corner of Macks Lane and Rt. 33.” The complaint also alleged that “Verizon won’t
replace it because it only supports 65 subscribers and it would cost $100K to replace.”
57 See OPC’s Copper Retirement Petition citing House Bill 472/Senate Bill 207 “Telephone Companies – Streamlined Regulatory Requirements,” (signed into law on May 12, 2015) and Retail Service Withdrawals within the Telecommunications Industry, dated December 1, 2015, Staff of the Maryland Public Service Commission. (concluding that Verizon should not be permitted to withdraw basic telephone service from Maryland) Mail Log No. 178776. 58 See, e.g., OPC’s Copper Retirement Petition (citing the discussion in the federal Copper Transition Order of Verizon’s failed attempt to replace copper voice with wireless Voice Link in Fire Island). 59 Verizon Response to OPC Petition, at p. 12. 60 PSC did not provide addresses with its recent PIA responses, and did not respond to an OPC request to provide that information. Geographical information was gleaned from the text of the complaints themselves.
18
The resident stated that the line supports her/his security system and fire alarm as well. It
is unclear how the issue was resolved.61
• Another Talbot County resident recently reported to the PSC of a “continuous lack of
service…in the Tilghman/Sherwood area,” including a phone service that been “off the
air for a week.”62 That customer’s service was restored after the PSC intervened.
• The PSC received a complaint from Cambridge (Dorchester County) in January 2014
stating that “Verizon refuses to upgrade the main box at the intersection of Hills Point
Road and Ragged Point Road because not enough customers in this area justify the
expense for the repairs needed.”63
• In one complaint from May, 2016, a rural Marylander reported experiencing “extremely
loud” buzzing/humming noise on their phone line several times per year, frequently after
a heavy rain.64 The repair technician “said it could not be fixed due to the old copper
wiring and instead offered up Voice Link product,” which the customer did not want.
Only after the PSC intervened did Verizon dispatch a technician to repair the chronic
problem.
• A resident of Glen Arm, Maryland, in Baltimore County, a non-fiber part of Maryland,
reported in January 2015 that Verizon made at least five trips to her/his home and found
problems one to three miles up Harford Road, that “could not be fixed” since “all hard
lines in Glen Arm were installed 50 years ago and now are corroding to the point where
Verizon can’t fix them.”65 The person was told the “only choice was to have a wireless
61 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, page 2, PIA response No. 7, Complaint 1015218298, filed 10/8/15. 62 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, page 7, PIA response No. 91, Complaint No. 516318598, filed May 6, 2016. 63 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-3, p. 5 PIA response No. 9, Complaint No. 114192335. 64 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, at p.6 PIA response 84 Complaint No. 516318751. 65 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, at p. 5, PIA response 57, Complaint 115208857. 19
phone base installed at no cost.” According to the complaint, Verizon evidently cut the
person’s phone line the next day. The complainant stated that Verizon had not made
her/him aware that, with its unregulated wireless service, s/he would lose *69 service and
or that the voice level fluctuates. The OER representative’s response - that the
Commission does not regulate wireless service – may have been correct, but did not
address the actual problem with Verizon’s actions in switching the customer to an
unregulated wireless service rather than fix the regulated service.
• A 86-year old Marylander in marginal health who lives “in a remote area” stated that
he/she apparently had no phone service for one to two months and could not get relief
from Verizon until the PSC intervened.66
• A Maryland man, trying to purchase basic landline service for his disabled brother in
Baltimore City, a non-FiOS® area, submitted a chat transcript from just last month,
November 2016, in which a Verizon representative told him, falsely, that “our landline
service is not eligible as a standalone product” and that “FiOS® digital voice is the only
option.”67
Verizon still has a legal duty to provide and maintain copper services in the significant
portion of Maryland where Verizon has not deployed its fiber network, including Baltimore City,
Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore.
It also has a duty to maintain the copper network in those parts of its service territory that
are not yet transitioning to fiber. Verizon conceded in its filing to the PSC that, in the areas
served by the five Maryland network transformation wire centers in its FCC petition (Bethesda,
66 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1 at p. 10, PIA response 141, Complaint No. 216315191. 67 See Baldwin Affidavit, Exhibit D and D-1(transcript of customer and Verizon). The customer apparently also submitted this transcript to the PSC on November 30, 2016. 20
Columbia, Glen Burnie, Rockville and Towson), less than 7% of the households still had a copper landline, and that Verizon’s intent is to eliminate the “unnecessary and redundant” costs of maintaining copper lines to these 5,700 customers.68 The question is, what about the rest of the households in fiber territory during the time of transition? The PSC should make sure that
Verizon does not simply abandon their essential services while waiting to issue retirement notices.
B. Forced Migration To Fiber
There were also numerous complaints that that Verizon switched customers to fiber phone service without their consent. It is not clear in all cases if the customers were forced to regulated fiber voice or FiOS® digital voice. Those that were clearly digital voice (or even wireless) migrations are addressed in the next section. According to Ms. Baldwin, there were 21 complaints to the PSC of forced migrations to fiber between October 2015 and August 2016; 16 complaints of which occurred in the context of repair of non-functioning dial tones between, and five of which occurred independent of a repair issue.69 She noted six additional forced migrations between January 2014 to October 2015,70 and 14 forced migrations between 2011 and 2014.71
For example, in March 2015, a disabled man and his wife who had no service for a month, were evidently moved off copper ‘WITHOUT WRITTEN or recorded VERBAL
PERMISSION,” and were also subject to “lies, passive aggressiveness + loud yelling by 2 phone reps & one on-site FiOS® tech…who all plainly stated that Verizon has no intention of
68 Verizon Response to OPC Copper Notice Petition at p. 3, 5. 69 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 1. 70 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, Table 3. 71Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix B, at p. 20 (this does not count the numerous complaints from people whom Verizon told must switch to FiOS as a repair issue). 21
switching us back to copper.”72 Verizon evidently switched another customer to fiber, without authorization, after that customer had “affirmed 5 times I would be kept on copper wire for my landline.”73
Another consumer was switched back to copper only after OER intervened after an
unauthorized migration in April, 2016. The OER notes state that the “Customer address is
served by a wire center that is migrating to fiber[;] any orders requiring a tech will result in
migration to fiber optic.”74 Another had agreed to upgrade Internet service only, but then found out in October 2015 that her/his phone was switched to fiber/FiOS® without her permission, and that s/he had lost voicemail and call forwarding capabilities.75 After the customer spent hours on
the phone with Verizon, the PSC intervened to get the customer’s telephone service switched
back to copper.
In addition to forced migrations, there are also numerous complaints of aggressive
marketing of fiber/, with Verizon telling people they had to switch to fiber/FiOS®, and in some
cases “shaming them” for forcing the company to maintain two systems.76
These complaints present new consumer protection challenges for the Commission in the
wake of new FCC rules on copper retirement and the ongoing technology transition.
The FCC’s 2015 Copper Transition Order authorizes Verizon and other telephone
companies to transition customers from copper to fiber services, but has specific rules on how
72 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, p. 3, PIA No. 43, Complaint No. 415212682 (emphasis in original)(The customer was moved back to copper only after PSC intervened.) 73 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 17, PIA No. 225, Complaint No. 1015218790. 74 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 8, PIA No. 43, Complaint No. 416317572. 75 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, p. 16, PIA No. 225, Complaint No. 1015218790. 76 See e.g., Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 12 (elderly couple complaining of being “shamed” by Verizon); p. 13 (after PSC intervention, Verizon apparently took action against an employee who threatened to terminate caller’s phone service if she did not switch to FIOS telephone, Internet and cable TV);,p. 14 (multiple calls for repair over the years are routed to FiOS sales); Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2 at p. 2 (“Verizon keeps pushing Fios”). 22
the companies may do so. 77 In areas where Verizon has not yet filed a notice with the FCC (i.e.
anyplace except Glen Burnie, Towson, Chevy Chase, Rockville and Columbia), Verizon may not
transition whole communities to fiber. It may only transition customers to fiber without
authorization to address repairs at individual addresses. 47 C.F.R. § 51.332(b)(3) provides an
exception on copper retirement an individual basis, to resolve a customer repair, or if the
customer consents to the replacement with fiber or other service. The only way to find out if
Verizon is taking advantage of this major exception, is to review and map their repair history.
Additionally, the consumer complaints highlight the issues with consumer “consent,” in light of
Verizon’s documented attempts to tell customers that migration to fiber is “mandatory.”
C. Forced migration to/upselling of unregulated Digital Voice or to wireless VoiceLink
Switching a consumer from a regulated phone service to an unregulated one is a serious
violation of a regulated company’s duty to provide an essential, regulated service.78 It also may
be an unauthorized discontinuance under COMAR 20.45.04.13 and/or 47 U.S.C. § 214(a).
The Commission OER complaint records show that Verizon has switched some
customers from regulated copper voice to unregulated digital voice, without permission or
approval, and then balked at switching the service back to copper. For example, one customer
experienced a “complete loss of my copper-wired Verizon phone service” in August, 2014, but
found out, after the scheduled repair, that the tech had – without authorization -- switched the
household to FiOS® digital voice, which was incompatible with the customer’s home security
77 See Baldwin Affidavit at pp. 18-21 (discussing e.g., FCC Copper Transition Order). 78 See also PUA § 8-602(c)(providing that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over VoIP service (such as digital voice) and a carrier must inform a customer of that fact). 23 system.79 In that case, the OER ordered the customer’s copper service restored. It is unclear if further action was taken.
Another customer reported to the OER in 2012 that s/he was switched to digital voice, twice, without authorization, in the midst of purchasing other bundled services, and was told that
“whenever changes are made to an account, copper phone wire gets automatically switched to
DV.”80 In other instances, Verizon refused to switch customers back to copper voice from digital voice after its unauthorized migrations.81
In other instances, the Company’s attempt at a forced migration to digital voice has been thwarted by savvy customers, who know to seek redress with the Commission or other agencies.
For example, as cited above, a man trying to establish new copper telephone service, without
Internet, for his disabled brother in Baltimore City submitted a chat transcript from November
2016 in which a Verizon representative him that “our landline service is not eligible as a standalone product” and that “FiOS® digital voice is the only option.”82 Luckily, this consumer sought assistance before purchasing an expensive, unneeded and un-regulated product.
The recent sets of complaints have echoes in the past. In its Copper Transition Order, the
FCC noted concerns that Verizon has migrated unsuspecting customers from regulated to unregulated services without adequate customer notice and consent.83 In fact, the FCC cited evidence in the record regarding the Verizon’s pressure on customers in Montgomery County,
79 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, at p. 5, PIA response 57, PSC 115208857. 80 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 3, Complaint 212149366. 81 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, p. 3, Complaint 11214818; p. 4, Complaint No. 211134714; 82 See Exhibit D-1, attached to this appendix, for a copy of the transcript, email to Ms. Lombardi, and letter that Mr. Mogliensky apparently sent to the Public Service Commission on November 30, 2016. 83 Copper Transition Order at ¶39. 24
Maryland to switch services not just to fiber but to a package of digital services offered over the
fiber network.84
Migration to Voice Link wireless service
Unauthorized migrations are not just limited to digital voice. At least two other
complaints tell of customers being switched off wires altogether, to Verizon’s wireless Voice
Link product.85 Cited above is a complaint from May, 2016, in which a rural Marylander
reported experiencing “extremely loud” buzzing/humming noise on their phone line several times per year, frequently after a heavy rain.86 The repair technician “said it could not be fixed
due to the old copper wiring and instead offered up Voice Link product,” which the customer did
not want. Only after the PSC OER intervened did Verizon dispatch a technician to repair the
chronic problem.
There was also a complaint from a Glen Arm (Baltimore County) resident who
apparently was told that, after five repair visits, that the copper near his/her home could not be
replaced, and that wireless was “the only option.”87 OER’s documented response, that “it [PSC]
does not regulate Voice Link service,” misses the point of the complaint, and is inadequate in
light of Verizon’s actions.
Migration to wireless may not be accidental. In those areas where Verizon has not
deployed FiOS, the announced intention of Verizon Communications is to eventually replace
copper-based service with wireless service. As Verizon Communications CEO Lowell McAdam
84 Copper Transition Order ¶53 (citing a local NBC news story by Liz Crenshaw and Patti Petitte, “Killing Copper? Customers Say They Felt Pressured Into FiOS” (Dec. 9, 2013) http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Verizon- Fios-Phone-Copper-Customers-Say-They-Felt-Pressured-Into-Fios-235098041.html). 85 See Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, at p. 6, Complaint 84 (PSC No. 516318751, dated May 10, 2016); Appendix C-2, p. 5, Complaint 57 (No. 115208857), dated January 14, 2015(describing Verizon’s proposed use of wireless Voice Link to resolve a problem with its copper network). 86 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-1, at p.6, PIA response 84 (PSC No. 516318751). 87 Baldwin Affidavit, Appendix C-2, at p. 5, PIA response 57, (PSC No. 115208857). 25
stated in June 2012: “And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE4 built that will handle …those services, and so we are going to cut the copper off there.”88
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, OPC requests that the Commission docket a proceeding to
investigate the recommendations set forth in the Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin and this Petition,
including:
• Whether Verizon is delivering adequate service quality to customers of its basic voice
services over its copper network in both fiber and non-fiber communities of the state;
• Whether, in those parts of the state where Verizon has deployed fiber but has not yet filed
notice with the FCC of its intent to do so, the continuing allegations of Verizon’s
unauthorized migration to its fiber network violates Maryland law and/or new FCC rules;
• Whether Verizon’s unauthorized migrations to and/or its aggressive promotion of its
unregulated digital voice (or wireless voice) service violate FCC rules and/or Maryland
law;
• Any other investigation into Verizon’s practices raised by this Petition, Ms. Baldwin’s
affidavit or the consumer complaints referenced herein;
and if such violations are found, to order appropriate injunctive and other relief for the protection
of Verizon’s residential customers.
[Continued for Signatures on next page]
88 June 21, 2012 Guggenheim Securities Symposium, Comments of Lowell McAdam. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/want-to-know-what-verizon-and-att-really-tell- theirinvestors_b_4640640.html. (McAdam Comments). 26
Respectfully submitted,
Paula M. Carmody People’s Counsel
Theresa V. Czarski Deputy People’s Counsel
/electronic signature/ Joyce R. Lombardi Assistant People’s Counsel
Office of People's Counsel 6 St. Paul Street, Suite 2102 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 767-8150
Dated: January 13, 2017
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 13th day of January 2017, the foregoing “Petition of
the Office of People’s Counsel For An Investigation Into Verizon Maryland’s Provision Of Basic
Local Phone Service Over Copper Or Fiber Networks” was e‐mailed and/or mailed, postage prepaid via the U.S.P.S, to the individuals below.
Suzan D. Paiva Assistant General Counsel Verizon 1717 Arch Street, 3 East Philadelphia PA 19103 Suzan [email protected]
Leslie M. Romine Staff Counsel Annette B. Garafolo Staff Attorney Public Service Commission of Maryland William Donald Schaefer Tower 6 St. Paul Street, 17th floor Baltimore MD 21202 [email protected] [email protected]
Vincent Trivelli Counsel for the Communications Workers of America The Law Office of Vincent Trivelli, PLLC 178 Chancery Row Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 [email protected]
/electronic signature/ Joyce R. Lombardi Assistant People’s Counsel
28
Exhibit 1
BEFORE THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PETITION OF THE : OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL : FOR AN INVESTIGATION : Docket No. ______
:
Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
On behalf of the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel
Regarding
Verizon Maryland’s
Maintenance and Repair of Its Copper-Based Services
In Both Fiber and Non-Fiber Areas of Maryland
JANUARY 13, 2017
Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. EVIDENCE FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ...... 7 III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION...... 16 IV. PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES...... 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Statement of Qualifications
Appendix B Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission
Appendix C-1 through C-3:
Illustrative Excerpts from Consumer Complaints to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC)
Appendix C-1: Excerpts from PIA response for October 2, 2015 to August 8, 2016 Appendix C-2: Excerpts from PIA response for January 1, 2014 to October 19, 2015 Appendix C-3: Excerpts from PIA response for January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 Appendix D: Review of Consumer Complaints to Other Government Agencies, and analysis of 2012-13 Complaint of David Cohen to the PSC Appendix E: “Pushing FiOS®” Montgomery County Summary of 31 FiOS®-related Complaints
i Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
I. INTRODUCTION
1. My name is Susan M. Baldwin. My address is P.O. Box 392, Newburyport,
Massachusetts, 01950. I am an independent consultant.
2. I have 38 years of experience in public policy in the public and private sectors,
more than 30 of which are in telecommunications regulation and policy. I have
testified before 21 state public utility commissions in more than 65 state
regulatory proceedings, and have graduate degrees in economics and in public
policy. I have extensive experience analyzing the deployment, affordability,
reliability, and availability of broadband access to the Internet, voice over Internet
protocol (“VoIP”) and “traditional” basic local exchange service (BLS). I have
participated in numerous state and federal proceedings in which these matters
have been investigated. Appendix A to my Affidavit includes my Statement of
Qualifications. I have testified previously in Maryland in two different
proceedings. I testified in 2007, on behalf of the Office of People’s Counsel
(“OPC”), in Case No. 9120 (In the Matter of the Commission’s Investigation into
Verizon Maryland, Inc.’s Affiliate Relationships, Maryland Public Service
Commission), and I testified in 2009, on behalf of the Communications Workers
of America, in Case No. 9133 (In the Matter of Appropriate Forms of Regulating
Telephone Companies), specifically regarding Verizon’s service quality.
3. I have also analyzed network reliability and service quality data, policy, and
practices in numerous proceedings as my Statement of Qualifications, in
Appendix A, shows. I examined service quality data and policy in various
1 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
proceedings that focused specifically on carriers’ service quality, including, for
example, the pending investigation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission (Docket No. P-2015-2509336); as part of my analysis of alternative
forms of regulation; and as part of my analysis of numerous change-of-control
proceedings (including, among others, the change in control in New Hampshire
from Verizon to FairPoint; in several states, the change of control from Verizon to
Frontier, and, most recently, the change of control from Verizon to Frontier in
California).
4. Within the past several years, multiple states where Verizon is the principal
incumbent local exchange carrier (“ILEC”) have initiated investigations about
Verizon’s service quality for services provisioned over copper facilities.
Consumer complaints in Maryland highlight ongoing service quality problems.
Complaints by Verizon customers also raise serious questions about Verizon’s
practices with respect to the transition of customers from their copper-based voice
services to voice service provided over fiber connections, including FiOS® voice
service.1 The OPC recently filed a petition with the Maryland Public Service
Commission (“PSC” or “Commission”) asking for an investigation and
suspension of copper retirement notices that Verizon Maryland, LLC (“Verizon
1 FiOS® is Verizon’s brand name for its fiber services that include Internet, TV and digital Voice. Verizon also provides regulated voice services over its fiber network. While the terms FiOS® and fiber voice are often used interchangeably in the PSC complaints and elsewhere, they are not the same. Fiber voice is a regulated service, whereas FiOS (digital) voice, Internet and TV are not. I have attempted to differentiate in some cases, but use FiOS to refer to both in most cases, as do the complaints I have reviewed. Further discovery is needed to differentiate between Verizon Md.’s actions with respect to its regulated vs. unregulated services.
2 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
Md.”) is sending to some Maryland consumers.2 In addition, the Communications
Workers of America (“CWA”) has repeatedly petitioned the Commission to
investigate Verizon Md.’s network maintenance and copper retirement practices.3
5. The OPC asked me to examine over 1,200 complaints filed by consumers with the
Commission, as well as with the Attorney General’s Office of Maryland and local
government agencies such as the Howard County Office of Cable Administration,
Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection, and Montgomery County
Office of Cable and Broadband Services between 2011 and the present to assess
how Verizon’s practices relating to service quality linked to network maintenance
and repair are perceived by its Maryland customers. As part of my review, I also
examined consumers’ complaints that pertain to how Verizon is handling copper
retirement and migration to fiber-based services, including FiOS®.
6. Based on my initial review, I conclude that there is a pattern to the complaints
warranting regulatory oversight, and thus strongly recommend that the
Commission conduct an evidentiary proceeding to get a more complete
understanding of Verizon’s practices and to develop remedies, if required, that
will protect the interests of consumers throughout the state to receive reliable
voice service. It is likely that such a fact-gathering proceeding would also provide
the Commission with information necessary to assist consumers in dealing with
2 Petition for an Investigation into The Copper Retirement Notices Sent by Verizon, Maryland LLC to Maryland Retail, Customers and Request for Immediate Suspension of those Notices Pending an Investigation (Mail Log No. 202479) October 28, 2016 (“OPC Copper Notice Petition”). 3 See Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO – Request for Investigation into Verizon Maryland Service Performance and Service Quality Standards, Maryland Public Service Commission Case No. 9133 and 9114 (Mail Log No. 174213) September 2, 2015; Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO – Request for Investigation into Verizon Maryland Service Performance and Service Quality Standards, Maryland Public Service Commission Case Nos. 9133 and 9114, (Mail Log No. 177812) November 16, 2015.
3 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
the current and impending copper retirement and would allow the Commission to
be proactive in developing a process for addressing any proposed substitution by
Verizon of new services (e.g., Internet Protocol (“IP”)-voice over fiber, fixed
wireless, or other alternatives) for its TDM-based voice service.
7. As explained below, my detailed analysis of consumer complaints points to the
need for regulatory focus on the following areas:
• Service quality in both fiber and non-fiber communities:
o In those parts of the state where Verizon has not deployed
fiber/FiOS® (and has no plans to do so), the concern is that
Verizon is turning its back on customers and will at best
implement band-aid solutions to deteriorating outside plant.
o In those parts of the state where Verizon has deployed fiber and
intends to migrate customers from copper to fiber (as the FCC’s
rules permit it do so), the concerns that consumer complaints
raise are that Verizon Maryland is letting its copper network
lapse in the meantime, (i.e. a de facto retirement) thus providing
gaps in service during the transition.
• Unauthorized copper retirement: In those parts of the state where Verizon
has deployed fiber and intends to migrate customers from copper to fiber
(as the FCC’s rules permit), but has not yet filed notice with the FCC of its
intent to do so, the consumer complaints raise the concern whether
continuing allegations of Verzion’s unauthorized migration of customers
4 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
to its fiber network violates FCC rules on wholesale community
retirement.
• Unauthorized discontinuance of regulated TDM-based voice service or
promotion of unregulated voice service. Some consumer complaints raise
the concern that Verizon Md. has migrated some customers to its
unregulated FiOS voice service without their full knowledge or consent,
or has pressured them to adopt that service without a clear distinction
between regulated and unregulated service.
8. The obligation and authority to look out for consumers’ interests with respect to
service quality and reliable access to basic voice service are squarely within the
PSC’s regulatory mandate. Verizon is subject to an alternative regulation plan,
which under Maryland law is required to “(1) protect consumers by, at minimum”
(i) producing affordable and reasonably priced basic local exchange
service, as defined by the Commission; and
(ii) ensuring the quality, availability, and reliability of telecommunications
services throughout the State.4
Consistent with this mandate, the Commission has focused on service quality
issues in connection with recent revisions to the alternative form of regulation
(“AFOR”).5
4 Maryland Utility Code § 4-301(b). In addition, the alternative regulation plan is required to encourage the development of competition and to be in the public interest. Id. 5 See, e.g., Order 83137 issued in: Case No. 9072, In The Matter of the Request of Verizon Maryland Inc. to Reclassify Certain Retail Bundled Services to the Competitive Services Basket As Provided By the Commission’s Price Cap Plan, Case No. 9114, In the Matter of Commission’s Investigation into Verizon Maryland, Inc.’s Service Performance and Service Quality Standards, Case No. 9123 ,In the Matter of Commission’s Inquiry into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service Over
5 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
9. A recent PSC Staff report has also recognized that the discontinuance of basic
local exchange service (“BLS”), along with access to E911, continues to require
regulatory oversight.6 Verizon Md. is the main provider of basic local exchange
service (“BLS”) throughout Maryland. Its service territory includes areas along
the I-95 corridor where Verizon has deployed a fiber network, such as Anne
Arundel County, Baltimore County, Howard County and Montgomery County.
Verizon also services significant portions of Maryland in which it has not
deployed fiber and that rely solely on copper telephone networks, especially rural
areas in southern Maryland, the Eastern and Western Shores, western Maryland,
as well as Baltimore City.7 While the discontinuance of BLS has yet to become
widespread in Maryland, issues of copper retirement and basic service
discontinuance are beginning to affect an increasing number of customers in
Maryland and nationwide as Verizon continues to migrate customers onto its
more lucrative fiber and wireless networks across the country.
10. I discuss issues related to the federal procedures for copper retirement and
discontinuance of service (pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended) in a later section of this affidavit. Evidence of “de facto”
retirement, in the form of neglect of Verizon’s copper network throughout
Fiber Optic Facilities; Case No. 9133, In the Matter of Appropriate Forms of Regulating Telephone Companies, et al; In Re Verizon Maryland Inc., 279 P.U.R.4th 504 (February 2, 2010) Mail Log 121510. 6 “Retail Service Withdrawals Within the Telecommunications Industry of Maryland,” on behalf of the Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland, December 1, 2015 (filed with the PSC with a cover letter from Janice M. Flynn, Assistant Staff Counsel, PSC, dated November 30, 2015), Docket No. PC 39. This Staff report, which responds to a specific legislative mandate, also addresses notice requirements related to rate increases. 7 The complaints I reviewed span a diverse geographic area. The Maryland Public Service Commission did not provide addresses with complaints from 2014 to 2016. The fiber-related complaints, of course, were centered in areas where fiber has been deployed.
6 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
Maryland – even in areas where there is no fiber -- is also a cause for concern, as
explained here.
II. EVIDENCE FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
11. Consumers submit complaints to various government agencies, such as the PSC,
the OPC, the Montgomery Office of Consumer Protection, the Howard County
Department of Technology and Communications Services Office of Cable
Administration, and the Office of the Attorney General. I reviewed over 1,200
complaints submitted to these agencies between January 2011 and August 2016
about the local telecommunications service that they receive from Verizon. Of
course, because not all consumers make the effort to complain, these complaints
should be viewed as representing the tip of the iceberg. The consumer complaints
on file are most likely indicative of more pervasive problems.
12. The vast majority of the approximately 1, 200 complaints that I reviewed were
received, tracked, and classified by the PSC. An individual complaint may be
classified by the PSC in multiple categories. I focused my analysis on those
complaints that the PSC flagged with either the “1136” code (service quality)8 or
the “7717” code (relating to copper and fiber”).9 The vast majority of the
complaints that I reviewed are residential complaints. The complaints submitted
to agencies in Montgomery and Howard Counties were far fewer in number but
included detailed accounts of customers’ frustration with their interactions with
8 The “1136” designation refers to complaints about a non-functioning dial tone. 9 The PSC defines the “7717” code as “provision of telephone service (copper v fiber).”
7 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
Verizon Md. regarding local telephone service. I also reviewed the thoroughly
documented formal filing and litigation docket of one individual Maryland
customer dating from early 2012, which details Verizon’s practice of neglecting
to repair its copper plant in anticipation of retiring the plant, and the unnecessary
confusion that Verizon Md.’s copper migration practices created.10 The striking
similarities between that customer’s complaint and the more recent ones show
that the problems related to Verizon Md.’s copper maintenance and retirement are
not a recent phenomenon – they have been developing and causing problems for
customers for quite some time. The sheer volume and similarity of complaints
across time also suggest that Verizon Md.’s repair problems are not isolated
routine events, but rather, are at best systematic of persistent lapses or, at worst,
emblematic of intentional conduct on the part of Verizon.
13. The complaints suggest some serious problems with Verizon Md.’s operations,
practices, and network maintenance. In many instances – especially in those parts
of Maryland where there is no fiber network, and no plans to construct one --
consumers’ complaints point to conditions that jeopardize reliable access to the
public switched network (and to public safety services, which such access
enables).
14. I would also note that the consumers who have filed these complaints include
many who are elderly or have medical conditions and who have expressly
indicated that it is extremely important to them to have a reliable network
10 See Appendix D to this affidavit for a discussion of the complaint of David Cohen(“Cohen Complaint”), Mail Log No. 138584 (April 2012), pp. 8-12.
8 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
connection. It is critical that maintenance and repairs take place in a prompt and
adequate manner to protect the health and safety of vulnerable consumers. In
addition, information about steps that Verizon is taking or could take to protect
these individuals could assist the Commission in guiding a smooth transition to
new technology.
15. Below, I group complaints by their principal topic and identify how the
development of an evidentiary record would help the PSC to obtain a more
comprehensive understanding of how the problems identified anecdotally through
the complaints are affecting consumers in various portions of Verizon’s Maryland
service territory and devise appropriate conditions or relief to better protect
consumers. The appendices are organized as follows:
• Appendix B -- more in-depth analysis of the complaints submitted to the
PSC.
• Appendices C-1 through C-3 – contains examples of complaints reported
to the PSC in the customers’ own words. Appendix C complaints are
grouped thematically and also by date; C-1 (October 2, 2015 to August 8,
2016); C-2 (January 1, 2014 to October 19, 2015) and C-3 (January 6,
2011 to January 15, 2014).
• Appendix D – review of complaints submitted by consumers to
government agencies other than the PSC (Office of the Attorney General;
Montgomery County, Howard County), as well as the well-documented
complaint of one individual, David Cohen, submitted to the PSC.
16. Within the appendices, the complaints are grouped thematically as follows:
9 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
• Service quality, including
i. chronic service problems, repair delays
ii. need to make sure rural consumers in non-fiber areas are protected
• Customer Service (delays, wait times)
• Public safety and other consumer issues
i. as they relate to “de facto” retirement
• Copper to fiber migration issues including
i. Unauthorized/unanticipated fiber migration
ii. Unauthorized migration to unregulated FiOS®
iii. Neglect during the copper-to-fiber transition gap
17. Service quality, including chronic service problems, repair delays: During the
most recent 10-month period reviewed by me (ending August 2016),
approximately 155 residential consumers complained about Verizon’s failure to
repair basic dial tone lines in a timely manner and indicate, for example, that they
may have called Verizon multiple times to no avail, waited five weeks or more for
repair, or endured poor service quality for many years, especially during poor
weather conditions.11 These recent 155 problems12 encompassed serious concerns
11 Based on my detailed review of service quality data and information in other state regulatory proceedings, I am aware that certain service quality problems are particularly severe and prevalent during rainy times – ILECs classify troubles such as cross-talk and static on the lines as service affecting or “SA” troubles, and classify troubles relating to non-functioning lines as out of service or “OOS” troubles. It is my understanding that these troubles surface when it rains because the moisture enters outside plant that has not been maintained properly. Sometimes service-affecting problems can become so severe that a customer cannot hear on a dial tone line. See, e.g., PSC “Batch No. 3”, No. 14, Complaint No. 716321893, dated July 15, 2016. UAS resolution reports “found area of cable defective.” 12 As I discuss below, numerous consumers expressed similar problems during the time period spanning January 2011 through December 2013. Some examples of these complaints are highlighted in Appendix C- 3.
10 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
with consumers’ copper-based basic local exchange service that included, for
example, static, humming, and lines that lacked dial tone entirely. Analyzing
data and trends regarding trouble reports trouble reports, and timeliness of repair
(standard service quality metrics that incumbent local exchange carriers typically
track and often report to state public utility commissions) as well as about
Verizon’s network maintenance practices would assist the Commission in
determining whether Verizon is providing adequate telephone service, and if not,
in determining appropriate remedies. The Commission may also determine if past
metrics are adequate to protect consumers during the current technology
transitions.
18. Service quality in non-fiber and rural areas. Service quality complaints
generally and ones associated with technology transition in particular raise
important questions about Verizon’s service quality in non-FiOS® areas of
Maryland and also whether Verizon is responding appropriately with respect to
necessary copper maintenance or appropriate notice when it determines that
copper should be replaced. As regulators in New York have noted, Verizon has
indicated that it does not intend to expand beyond the existing FiOS® footprint.13
13 Scott Dance, “Baltimore looks to join 'gigabit cities,' including Westminster, in boosting broadband Internet capacity,” Baltimore Sun.com, October 18, 2015 (Verizon spokesman stated that the company does not have plans to expand the network beyond places where it is contractually obligated to do so) http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/technology/bs-md-ci-broadband-expansion-20151013-story.html; see also Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Consider the Adequacy of Verizon New York Inc.’s Retail Service Quality Processes and Programs, Order Initiating Proceeding to Review Verizon New York Inc.’s Service Quality (Issued and Effective March 21, 2016) (“2016 NYPSC Service Quality Proceeding”) at 6, citing statement by Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam, January 7, 2014, at the Citi Internet Media & Telecommunications Conference: “We’re expanding not the footprint of FiOS®, but the penetration of the buildings within FiOS®.” Available at: https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/citi- 2014-internetmedia-telecommunications-conference.
11 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
There are still many areas of Maryland (including rural areas and Baltimore) that
fall outside the existing FiOS® footprint. A targeted focus on service quality and
customer service in these areas is important in order to ensure that customers who
reside there do not become second-class citizens with respect to their 21st century
telecommunications services.
19. Customer Service: Consumers raise complaints about rude customer service
representatives, being given the “runaround,” and being placed on hold for long
periods of time when they call the repair bureau. For example, during the time
period spanning January 2014 to October 2015, of the 159 residential complaints
that were submitted regarding copper repair or copper-to-fiber concerns, the PSC
classified 22 of them with the code “1138” which the PSC defines as “Cust. Sve
(inaccess; rude; not helpful, long wait times, disconnected, etc.).” Moreover, I
observed that in some instances, the PSC’s complaint forms recorded consumer
frustration with the process of obtaining repairs but that frustration was not
assigned the code of “1138” and, therefore, my tally of 22 out of 159 complaints
for the January 2014-October 2015 time period under-represents the sense of
frustration that consumers are experiencing. It may be appropriate to seek data
regarding how long customers are put on hold, the percentage of calls to the
repair bureau that are handled promptly, and other pertinent metrics.
20. Public Safety and other consumer issues: Between January 2014 and early
August 2016, 41 customers raised concerns about aspects of Verizon’s outside
plant that may present public safety issues, such as low and dangling wires,
persistent damage from rodents or weather, plastic bags being used to “protect”
12 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
wires, and broken poles. To the extent that this issue constitutes evidence of a “de
facto” retirement of copper plant, as mentioned in OPC’s Copper Notice
Petition,14 these issues are of concern here. The full extent of Verizon’s
maintenance of its physical plant and lines, however, is outside the scope of my
affidavit. Further evidence of Verizon’s operations related to its physical plant is
squarely addressed in some of the recent CWA filings.15 Consumers also raised
concerns about billing disputes, and other issues. These concerns are also outside
the scope of my affidavit, though the prevalence of complaints relating to fiber
voice services suggests that oversight may need to be increased in to provide
consumers with adequate recourse.
21. Copper to fiber migration. In addition to the significant number of general
service quality complaints, the consumer complaints I reviewed also raise serious
questions about the way in which Verizon is migrating customers from copper to
fiber. The replacement of copper loops with fiber may take two forms: 1) copper
retirement, in which the ILEC replaces the copper loop to a customer’s home with
a fiber connection, but continues to provide the existing voice service over that
connection, or 2) a discontinuance of the TDM-based voice service in favor of an
IP-based wireline service (over fiber) or other “alternative” service (which could
use a wireless connection). After discussing the consumer complaints and the
concerns for service quality associated with these two versions of technology
transition, I explain in more detail the federal requirements associated with each
of these options. Consumers would benefit from having the PSC become actively
18 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3). 18 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3).
13 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
involved in monitoring notices for copper retirement as well as any proposed
discontinuance of service that affects Maryland consumers.16
22. Unanticipated/unauthorized copper replacement: Some consumers recount
that when a Verizon technician does show up to fix a basic phone line, the
technician states that Verizon does not “invest in copper anymore.” According to
these consumers, technicians arrive with an order to replace the customer’s copper
line with a fiber line, with no prior notice to the customer. Others report that fiber
voice is installed without the customer’s knowledge or consent.
23. Unauthorized migration to unregulated FiOS® (rather than maintaining
fiber with TDM-based service): Yet other customers, who indicate that they
have intentionally continued to subscribe to copper-based voice although they
also subscribe to Verizon’s FiOS®-based television or broadband Internet access,
report being converted to an entirely FiOS®-based bundle – which is unregulated
-- when they call to request the repair of their voice lines. This type of complaint
indicates that Verizon may be intentionally misleading consumers to believe that
they must migrate to unregulated FiOS® services when a copper loop is replaced
with fiber, when, under FCC’s copper retirement rules, the customer is entitled to
retain his or her existing service. This warrants further investigation.
24. While the new Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules do allow
Verizon to switch an individual customer’s service to regulated fiber-based
services in response to individual service complaints, the FCC does not authorize
switching customers to non-regulated FiOS digital voice service, and it has
18 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3).
14 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
cautioned that this is not a loophole that Verizon should exploit by replacing
whole neighborhoods or areas without notice.17 Information about Verizon’s plans
for and execution of its copper retirement would assist the Commission in
ensuring that customers have adequate notice (at least the 90 days specified in the
FCC rules) and information about the implications of losing their copper loops, as
the FCC’s notice rules require. Faced with the knowledge that he or she was
going to lose the unique properties of a copper connection (i.e., no need for
battery back-up), a customer might conceivably choose to use the notice period to
migrate voluntarily to another provider.
25. Copper transition gap. In areas where Verizon intends to retire its copper plant
but has not yet done so, residents are vulnerable to being neglected during what I
term the “transition gap” – that is, the gap of time between the present and
Verizon’s actual retirement of copper plant. In other words, if Verizon intends to
retire copper at some point in the upcoming months or years, it may forego
repairing copper plant that has deteriorated. In the interim, that is, before Verizon
has embarked on its official copper retirement plan, consumers are harmed
because of non-functioning or poorly functioning dial tone lines that Verizon has
seemingly chosen to neglect because it intends ultimately to retire the copper plant
and migrate the local service to fiber-based service. An evidentiary proceeding
would enable the Commission to learn more about the timing, location, and plans
for Verizon’s further copper retirement. Verizon’s handling of its first round of
18 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3).
15 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
copper retirement led the Maryland OPC to file a petition and investigation, so
surely a closer look is warranted to review Verizon’s remaining plans.
III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
26. The service quality and other consumer impacts described above are occurring in
the context of major changes in ILEC telecommunications infrastructure and the
services being provided. As noted, it is not always possible to determine whether
service quality problems are incidental to or a result of the ILEC’s technology
transition plans. Either way, they should be taken seriously and addressed by the
PSC.
27. Technology transition and regulatory requirements are intertwined in a manner
that can be quite confusing, even to experts in the field, and certainly to
consumers.
• The traditional method of providing wireline voice service involved a
copper connection from the customer premises to the ILEC’s central office
(or “wire center”), transmitting calls using “time division multiplexing”
(or “TDM”) and circuit switching equipment. For purposes of this
discussion, this form of service will be referred to as POTS (which stands
for “plain old telephone service”).
• The ILEC may replace the copper connection, all or part of the way to the
customer’s premises, with fiber, but continue to provide a circuit-switched
16 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
TDM service. For purposes of this discussion, this service will be referred
to as “TDM-fiber” service.
• Verizon’s FiOS Digital Voice (or “FDV”) service uses a fiber connection
from the customer’s premises to the central office, but uses Internet
protocol (rather than TDM) and “soft switches” (rather than circuit
switching equipment).
• Verizon has recently added another form of voice service to its portfolio –
the fixed wireless service known as Voice Link. With Voice Link, Verizon
uses wireless spectrum in place of copper lines to deliver voice service to
a fixed location (customer premises). Verizon typically markets Voice
Link as a replacement for POTS in locations where chronic repair
problems exist and where an upgrade to fiber facilities is not planned.
28. From a technological perspective, both forms of fiber service require battery
back-up, since electrical current requires a conductive medium (e.g., copper).
However, when it comes to regulatory treatment (by the Maryland PSC), the two
TDM services have more in common; they are both subject to regulation by the
Maryland Commission, whereas the IP-based FiOS service is not.
29. While wireless telephone service are not regulated by the Maryland PSC, the
Commission has not yet determined whether Verizon Md. should be permitted to
deploy this inferior and unregulated service as a way to avoid repairing copper-
based voice service. Voice Link can be a replacement for basic voice service, but
lacks some of the functionality associated with wireline service. Voice Link does
not employ IP transmission and thus is not covered by the Maryland law that
17 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
exempts IP-based services from regulation. Although Voice Link is provided on
a wireless basis, it is not equivalent to the commercial mobile wireless services
that were largely exempted from state PUC regulation (entry/exit and rate
regulation) by a 1993 federal law.18 In New York, when Verizon faced resistance
over substituting Voice Link for POTS on storm-damaged Fire Island, the
company agreed to make the service available on essentially the same terms as the
wired service it was intended to replace. As discussed below, the FCC has
deemed the withdrawal of wireline service (in favor of a fixed wireless service,
such as Voice Link) to constitute as “discontinuance, reduction, or impairment” of
service, which triggers Section 214 obligations.
30. The FCC has issued several key orders since August 2015 that set a framework
for technology transition.19 There are two separate and independent procedures
that an ILEC may invoke to transition to fiber in its network.
31. The first procedure is referred to as copper retirement. Copper retirement
consists of the replacement of the customer’s copper network connection (“local
loop”) with fiber. The replacement of copper with fiber does not mean that a
customer must give up his or her “traditional” (and, in Maryland, regulated) basic
voice service in favor of (unregulated) FiOS® digital voice service. Verizon’s
18 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3). 19 Major orders in this proceeding include: Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling, 29 FCC Rcd 14968 (2014) (“Emerging Wireline Notice and Declaratory Ruling”); Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 9372, 9379, para. 9 (2015) (“Emerging Wireline re Copper Retirement”); Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 16-90, released July 15, 2016 (“Emerging Wireline re Section 214 Rules”). See also, Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, PS Docket No. 14-174, 30 FCC Rcd 8677 (2015) (“E-911 Associated with Tech Transitions”).
18 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
official communications acknowledge this fact,20 but customer and employee
accounts suggest that Verizon’s practices may conflict with its official position.
32. When an ILEC plans a retirement of its copper loops, it is required under FCC
rules to provide residential customers with 90 days’ notice.21 The form of notice is
set out in the FCC rules. The rules require that the ILEC disclose any changes to
the customer’s service that will result from the replacement of copper with fiber
(along with links to a website that will provide additional detail).22 No pre-
authorization is required so long as the ILEC complies with the notice
requirements.
33. The principal impact on a customer’s voice service from replacing copper with
fiber23 is the need for an independent power source. The use of copper as a
medium for transmission permitted the ILEC to supply power along with the
telephone signal. This capability is lost when the line is converted to fiber. Fiber-
based service requires a device that must be connected to the customer’s electric
power supply, and, in the event of a power outage, relies on battery back-up. The
20 See, Cases 9133/9144, Letter from Suzan DeBusk Paiva, Assistant General Counsel, Verizon, dated July 13, 2016, at p. 3 (“There is no change to the voice service provided to fiber repair customers, only a change to the facilities on Verizon’s network to deliver the same service. Customers may keep their existing voice service, at the same price as they paid previously, with the same terms, conditions, and regulatory status.”) 21 See 47 C.F.R. § 51.331. 22 Id. 23 The discussion here pertains principally to Verizon’s voice services. Customers that subscribe to Verizon’s Digital Subscriber Loop service (DSL) are also affected by the retirement of their copper connection. A recent “Copper Retirement Notice” sent to a Maryland customer states, “If you subscribe to our High Speed Internet service, the migration to fiber will require a change since that service is not available on our fiber facilities. The Internet access service that we offer on fiber is FiOS® Internet.” See Verizon Notices attached to OPC’s Retirement Notice Petition, described above in FN 1. Although the discontinuance of a telecommunications service is subject to review under 47 U.S.C. §214, when the FCC (in its recent Open Internet Order) restored DSL to “telecommunications service” status, it specifically forbore from enforcing Section 214 to DSL and other broadband Internet access services. In re Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601, 5847-8 (“2015 Open Internet Order”), aff’d sub nom. USTA v. FCC, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1063, decided June 14, 2016. Thus, while a customer can maintain his or her existing voice service after copper retirement and is not required to switch to Verizon’s FiOS® voice service, the same is not true with respect to the customer’s broadband Internet access service.
19 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
FCC and state regulators have recognized that consumers need to be educated
about this important difference. The FCC has also adopted rules that require
(over a phase-in period) that ILECs provide customers with batteries that are
sufficient to permit access to E-911 services over an extended time period.24
34. There is a limited exception to the notice requirement that permits the ILEC to
replace copper with fiber in order to fix a service quality problem reported by the
customer. The FCC explicitly explains that this is intended for exceptional
circumstances and may not be used as a routine way to avoid the notice
requirements.25 The rules also have a separate mechanism for addressing an
ILEC’s neglect of copper facilities that impairs service in a manner that
constitutes a “de facto” retirement.26
35. In recent correspondence from CWA and Verizon to the Commission, there has
been some disagreement about the extent to which Verizon is entitled to rely on
the “service quality concern” exception with regard to the replacement of copper
in response to individual customer service quality complaints. According to
CWA, Verizon has identified certain “affected service area[s]” as candidates for
what it calls “fiber-to-the-fix,” in which technicians are instructed to replace
copper loops only (or primarily) in response to specific customer complaints. The
PSC should investigate the process by which Verizon is deciding whether and
when to notify customers in areas that it has pre-designated as “fiber-to-the fix”
24 See, 47 C.F.R. § 12.5 (“Backup Power Obligations”). 25 “[W]e caution that this clarification is not a loophole and if we see evidence of abuse, we will reevaluate the issue and take action if appropriate.” Emerging Wireline re Copper Retirement at para. 93. 26 The FCC admonishes ILECs that “where they neglect copper facilities in a manner that constitutes de facto retirement, any resulting loss of service may constitute a discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service for which a section 214(a) application is necessary.” Id. at para. 92.
20 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
candidates. It seems inconsistent with the objectives of the FCC’s rule – to
provide customer education and notice – to keep these customers in the dark until
a specific facility failure occurs. Whether or not this is strictly required by the
federal rule, given the concerns expressed by some Maryland customers in their
complaints, it would be more consistent with the intent of the federal rules and
sound public policy to either 1) replace copper throughout the “affected service
area” in a planned and public manner, using the prescribed notification process, or
2) at a minimum, inform all customers in an “affected service area” that the loop
facilities in their area are vulnerable to service quality problems and are likely
candidates for fiber replacement if the customer reports a service problem. Either
way, there should not be de facto retirement of the copper through systematic or
benign neglect.
36. Nearly a year after issuing its copper retirement rules, the FCC issued a second
major order setting out rules relative to discontinuance of TDM voice services, an
action that requires approval pursuant to Section 214 of the Act. These rules
apply when the ILEC proposes to end customers’ access to existing TDM-based
voice service, rather than simply remove and replace a component of its
distribution system. The question of what service or services become available to
the affected customers as a replacement is part of what the FCC considers in
determining whether the discontinuance is in the public interest.27
27 The FCC “reject[ed] calls from incumbent LECs to presume that particular technologies, by their nature, represent an adequate replacement for legacy voice services in all instances,” noting that specific circumstances could tip the balance in an assessment of the public interest impact of a discontinuance. Emerging Wireline re Section 214 Rules at paras. 74-75.
21 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
37. The technology transition process is structured to preserve an emphasis on service
reliability and performance. Thus, the FCC has established specific metrics for
determining if an alternative service is an adequate replacement for TDM-based
voice service that an ILEC may propose to discontinue. Meanwhile, it is critical
that the PSC ensure that existing service continues to perform at an acceptable
level. The use of service quality metrics, applied on a geographically
disaggregated basis, is a key monitoring tool.
38. State commissions are not limited by the FCC rules with respect to retirement of
TDM-based services in favor of services provided using alternative technologies
and may adopt review procedures that address state-specific concerns with respect
to intrastate services. For example, in its July 2016 order on the Section 214
process, the FCC stated:
[T]he Commission’s Section 214 authority applies only to interstate telecommunications services; wholly intrastate services such as local telephone service are excluded from its reach. Moreover, the Section 214 process is not intended to preempt or displace carrier of last resort (COLR) or other service obligations that states may impose on incumbent LECs. Section 214 authority to discontinue an interstate switched access service does not carry with it relief from any COLR or other state law obligations that require a carrier to provide local service.28
IV. PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES
39. Experience in other states suggests that Maryland is not unique with respect to
customers’ concerns about Verizon’s service quality and practices related to
copper retirement and the transition to IP-enabled voice services. There is also
28 Id. at para. 52.
22 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
evidence that competitive pressures are not sufficient to ensure that all customers
get good service and benefit from technology upgrades.
40. Like Maryland, New York has, for many years, relied on an alternative form of
regulation (“AFOR”) that includes a service quality improvement plan. Like the
PSC, the New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”) had credited
assurances from Verizon that competitive forces and pressures to deploy fiber
warranted the relaxation of regulation and, in particular, service quality regulation
for Verizon’s “non-Core” services.29 In a recent order, the NYPSC concluded that
conditions had changed and that what had been an appropriate “regulatory
balance” in 2010 might no longer be adequate.30 The conditions that had
changed, according to the NYPSC, included the following;
• Verizon’s line loss had largely stabilized; put differently, those customers
who had, so far, chosen to remain with were, for various reasons, less
likely to defect to competitive services or providers;31
• Verizon had publicly indicated that it did not intend to expand its FiOS®
footprint (although it might increase fiber within the footprint);32
• The record in a recent proceeding was “replete with comments, both
anecdotal and supported by statistics, stating that Verizon’s copper service
quality for non-Core [retail] customers does not meet Commission
standards, and that Verizon’s unwillingness to expand its FiOS® service
29 2016 NYPSC Service Quality Proceeding, op. cit. fn. 17 at 5-6. 30 Id. at 6-7. 31 Id. at 6, 9. In fact, it is possible that many of these customers lack competitive options. 32 Id. at 6-7.
23 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
any further has created two classes of customers, those with access to an
FTTP network and those without it.”33
• “The same comments state that those without access to Verizon’s modern
fiber network lack the same competitive choices as those in areas where
FiOS® has been deployed.”
In response, the NYPSC initiated further proceedings with the objective of
understanding:
• “whether changes to Verizon New York Inc.’s … service quality oversight
are necessary”
• “whether competition is providing a sufficient incentive for Verizon to
maintain its non-Core customer service quality”
• “why certain non-Core customers are not exercising choice and what
efforts Verizon is making to retain those customers”, and
• “what efforts the Company is making to ensure the continued viability of
the copper network.”34
The NYPSC also noted that “this investigation will inherently include an
examination as to the state of the copper system and whether Verizon’s
investment in its network has been sufficient to provide adequate levels of service
to consumers on regulated services.”
41. It is very possible that trends noted by the NYPSC have their parallels in
Maryland. Certainly, Verizon’s fiber deployment and network maintenance
33 Id. at 7. 34 Id. at 2.
24 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
policies are highly likely to be the same or quite similar. While the Maryland
PSC has not yet attempted to create an evidentiary record on service quality
concerns like the one New York has already completed, the complaints that have
come in informally over the past few years point to various significant service
quality problems, particularly for Verizon customers who continue to be served
over copper facilities. I recommend that the PSC investigate recent trends in
Verizon’s service quality. It will be important to use specific metrics at a
sufficiently granular geographic level to detect whether dual classes of service
quality are developing in Maryland, based on the availability or absence of fiber
to the premises. It may also be productive to examine other questions raised by
the New York PSC, such as whether Verizon’s remaining voice services
customers face different competitive conditions (e.g., lack of perceived reliable or
affordable alternatives, strong preference for power-independent service), such
that they are compelled to tolerate lower-than-adequate service quality in the
absence of regulatory intervention.
42. Verizon’s service quality is also the focus of an ongoing proceeding in
Pennsylvania.35 Consumers’ complaints about the condition of Verizon’s network
and ongoing service quality problems were also a major issue in the California
Public Utility Commission’s proceeding regarding the transfer of control on
Verizon’s California operations to Frontier.36
35 Petition of Communications Workers of America for a Public, On-the-Record Commission Investigation of the Safety, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Service Provided by Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, Pennsylvania PUC Docket No. P-2015-2509336, direct testimony on behalf of Communications Workers of America. I submitted testimony on behalf of CWA in this matter. 36 In the Matter of the Joint Application of Frontier Communications Corporation, Frontier Communications of America, Inc. (U 5429 C), Verizon California Inc. (U 1002 C), Verizon Long Distance, LLC (U 5732), and Newco West Holdings LLC for Approval of Transfer of Control Over Verizon
25 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCOPE OF EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS
43. The purpose of an evidentiary proceeding would be, at a minimum, to determine
whether:
• Verizon is delivering adequate service quality to customers of its basic
voice services,
• Customers throughout the state, regardless of where they reside, are
receiving comparable levels of service quality;
• Additional regulatory remedies (or increased enforcement) are necessary
in order to ensure that consumers throughout the state receive reliable
uninterrupted basic telecommunications service;
• Verizon is complying with the FCC’s copper retirement rules.
44. An evidentiary proceeding could establish a record for the PSC to:
• Develop remedies for any deficiencies identified in the course of the
investigation;
• Develop safeguards to ensure that technology transition (whether copper
retirement or service discontinuation) does not jeopardize service
reliability and public safety, either of consumers whose service is being
transitions or those who remain on “legacy” facilities.
California Inc. and Related Approval of Transfer of Assets and Certifications (Filed March 18, 2015), Application 15-03- 005.
26 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
45. My detailed analysis of consumer complaints points to the need for regulatory
focus on network maintenance, technology replacement, and service transition
issues:
• Service quality in both fiber and non-fiber communities:
• Non-fiber/FiOS® communities: In those parts of the state where Verizon
has not deployed FiOS® (and has no plans to do so), the concern is that
Verizon is turning its back on customers and will at best implement band-
aid solutions to deteriorating outside plant. An evidentiary hearing could:
o Identify those communities in which Verizon has not deployed
and does not intend to deploy FiOS®.
o Analyze metrics that convey information about the condition of
the network (such as trouble reports and repeat trouble reports).
o Analyze Verizon’s outside plant maintenance practices and
procedures.
• Fiber communities: In those parts of the state where Verizon has deployed
fiber and intends to migrate customers from copper to fiber (as the FCC’s
rules permit it do so), the consumer complaints raise concerns that Verizon
Maryland is letting its copper network lapse in the meantime, (i.e. a de
facto retirement) thus providing gaps in service during the transition.
• Unauthorized copper retirement: In those parts of the state where Verizon
has deployed fiber and intends to migrate customers from copper to fiber
(as the FCC’s rules permit), but has not yet filed notice with the FCC of its
intent to do so, the consumer complaints raise the concern whether
27 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Susan M. Baldwin
continuing allegations of Verizon’s unauthorized migration of customers
to its fiber network violates FCC rules on wholesale community
retirement. An investigation would help reveal Verizon’s policies for
selecting an area as a candidate for copper retirement, whether proactively
or by means of “fiber-to-the-fix, and how copper retirement areas (or
candidate areas) correlate, if at all, with FiOS®/non-FiOS® areas. An
investigation could also reveal additional measures the PSC could adopt to
ensure that consumers are adequately informed about the impact of copper
retirement?
• Discontinuance of TDM-based voice service: To my knowledge, Verizon
has yet to initiate any Section 214 applications to the FCC or requests for
termination of retail services with the PSC regarding TDM-based voice
services in any portion of Maryland. However, it would be useful for the
Commission to gain knowledge of Verizon’s strategy for technology
transition, as they develop. Meanwhile, in FiOS® communities, there
should be a continuing focus on ensuring that customers are being given
accurate and timely information about their right to retain regulated TDM-
based voice service even when they have a fiber loop and/or receive other
FiOS® services (e.g., video programming and Internet access).
I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that the information contained in my Appendices, attached hereto, are true and accurate representations of the documents I reviewed.
/s/ Susan M. Baldwin
January 13, 2017
28 Appendix A
SUSAN M. BALDWIN PO Box 392 Newburyport, MA 01950 617-388-4068 [email protected] smbaldwinconsulting.com
______
Susan M. Baldwin specializes in utility economics, regulation, and public policy. Since 2001, Ms. Baldwin has been an independent consultant. Ms. Baldwin has been actively involved in public policy for thirty-eight years, more than thirty of which have been in telecommunications policy and regulation. Ms. Baldwin received her Master of Economics from Boston University, her Master of Public Policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and her Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics and English from Wellesley College. Ms. Baldwin has extensive experience both in government and in the private sector.
Ms. Baldwin has testified before 21 public utility commissions, including: the Arkansas Public Service Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, District of Columbia Public Service Commission, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Illinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Iowa Utilities Board, Maryland Public Service Commission, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable, Nevada Public Service Commission, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, Tennessee Public Service Commission, Vermont Public Service Board, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. Ms. Baldwin has also authored numerous comments and declarations submitted in various Federal Communications Commission proceedings.
Ms. Baldwin has also participated in projects in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, South Dakota, and Canada on behalf of consumer advocates, public utility commissions, and competitive local exchange carriers. Ms. Baldwin has served in a direct advisory capacity to public utility commissions in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Utah and Vermont. Ms. Baldwin has also testified on behalf of public utility commission staff in Idaho and Rhode Island. Ms. Baldwin has testified before state legislative committees in Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Ms. Baldwin has sponsored expert reports in state taxation proceedings. Also, in her capacity as an independent consultant, Ms. Baldwin has consulted to and testified on behalf of consumer advocates on diverse matters including the electric retail market, consumer protection and consumer services issues in telecommunications, electric, and gas proceedings, broadband deployment, numbering resources, unbundled network element (UNE) cost studies, incumbent local exchange carriers’ requests for competitive classification of services, mergers and spin- offs, rate cases, universal service, service quality, and state Triennial Review Order (TRO) proceedings. She co-sponsored testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 2
Counsel regarding the electric retail market. She prepared comprehensive testimony analyzing mass market impairment on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, the Arkansas Office of the Attorney General, and the Utah Committee of Consumer Services.
Ms. Baldwin has contributed to numerous comments submitted to the FCC on diverse aspects of broadband in various proceedings on topics such as data collection, mapping, deployment, universal service, affordability, consumer protection, and network management. Also, in state regulatory proceedings that have examined carriers’ proposals for spin-offs and for mergers, she has recommended conditions concerning broadband deployment.
Ms. Baldwin served as a direct advisor to the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) between August 2001 and July 2003, in Massachusetts DTE Docket 01-20, an investigation of Verizon’s total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) studies for recurring and nonrecurring unbundled network elements (UNEs). She assisted with all aspects of this comprehensive case in Massachusetts. Ms. Baldwin analyzed recurring and nonrecurring cost studies; ran cost models; reviewed parties’ testimony, cross- examined witnesses, trained staff, met with the members of the Commission, assisted with substantial portions of the major orders issued by the DTE; and also assisted with the compliance phase of the proceeding.
Ms. Baldwin has also contributed to numerous comments and declarations submitted to the Federal Communications Commission on issues such as broadband; intercarrier compensation reform; the Comcast-NBCU merger, price cap regulation; universal service; carriers’ petitions for forbearance; separations reform; special access services, relay services; numbering optimization, and the Internet Protocol transition.
Ms. Baldwin worked with Economics and Technology, Inc. for twelve years (1984 to 1988 and 1992-2000), most recently as a Senior Vice President. Among her numerous projects were the responsibility of advising the Vermont Public Service Board in matters relating to a comprehensive investigation of NYNEX’s revenue requirement and proposed alternative regulation plan. She participated in all phases of the docket, encompassing review of testimony, issuance of discovery, cross-examination of witnesses, drafting memoranda and decisions, and reviewing compliance filings. Another year-long project managed by Ms. Baldwin was the in- depth analysis and evaluation of the cost proxy models submitted in the FCC’s universal service proceeding. Also, on behalf of the staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Ms. Baldwin testified on the proper allocation of US West’s costs between regulated and non-regulated services. On behalf of AT&T Communications of California, Inc. and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Ms. Baldwin comprehensively analyzed the non-recurring cost studies submitted by California’s incumbent local exchange carriers. Ms. Baldwin has participated in more than twenty state and federal regulatory investigations of the impact of proposed transfers of control of wireline, wireless and cable companies.
Ms. Baldwin has contributed to the development of state and federal policy on numbering matters. On behalf of the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Ms. Baldwin Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 3 participated in the Numbering Resource Optimization Working Group (NRO-WG), and in that capacity, served as a co-chair of the Analysis Task Force of the NRO-WG. She has also provided technical assistance to consumer advocates in the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania on area code relief and numbering optimization measures. Ms. Baldwin also co-authored comments on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates in the FCC’s proceeding on numbering resource optimization.
During her first years at ETI, Ms. Baldwin was the Director of Publications and Tariff Research, and, in that capacity, she trained and supervised staff in the analysis of telecommunications rate structures, services, and regulation.
Ms. Baldwin served four years (1988-1992) as the Director of the Telecommunications Division for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (now the Department of Telecommunications & Cable), where she directed a staff of nine, and acted in a direct advisory capacity to the DPU Commissioners. (The Massachusetts DTC maintains a non-separated staff, which directly interacts with the Commission, rather than taking an advocacy role of its own in proceedings). Ms. Baldwin advised and drafted decisions for the Commission in numerous DPU proceedings including investigations of a comprehensive restructuring of New England Telephone Company’s rates, an audit of NET’s transactions with its NYNEX affiliates, collocation, ISDN, Caller ID, 900-type services, AT&T’s request for a change in regulatory treatment, pay telephone and alternative operator services, increased accessibility to the network by disabled persons, conduit rates charged by NET to cable companies, and quality of service. Under her supervision, staff analyzed all telecommunications matters relating to the regulation of the then $1.7-billion telecommunications industry in Massachusetts, including the review of all telecommunications tariff filings; petitions; cost, revenue, and quality of service data; and certification applications. As a member of the Telecommunications Staff Committees of the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners (NECPUC) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), she contributed to the development of telecommunications policy on state, regional, and national levels.
Ms. Baldwin has worked with local, state, and federal officials on energy, environmental, budget, welfare, and telecommunications issues. As a policy analyst for the New England Regional Commission (NERCOM), Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and Massachusetts Office of Energy Resources (MOER), she acquired extensive experience working with governors’ offices, state legislatures, congressional offices, and industry and advocacy groups. As an energy analyst for NERCOM, Ms. Baldwin coordinated New England’s first regional seminar on low-level radioactive waste, analyzed federal and state energy policies, and wrote several reports on regional energy issues. As a budget analyst for the DPW, she forecast expenditures, developed low-income policy, negotiated contracts, prepared and defended budget requests, and monitored expenditures of over $100 million. While working with the MOER, Ms. Baldwin conducted a statewide survey of the solar industry and analyzed federal solar legislation.
Ms. Baldwin received Boston University’s Dean’s Fellowship. While attending the Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 4
Kennedy School of Government, Ms. Baldwin served as a teaching assistant for a graduate course in microeconomics and as a research assistant for the school’s Energy and Environmental Policy Center, and at Wellesley College was a Rhodes Scholar nominee. She has also studied in Ghent, Belgium.
Record of Prior Testimony
In the matter of the Application of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company for Approval of its Plan for an Alternative Form of Regulation, New Jersey Board of Regulatory Commissioners Docket No. T092030358, on behalf of the New Jersey Cable Television Association, filed September 21, 1992, cross- examined October 2, 1992. DPUC review and management audit of construction programs of Connecticut's telecommunications local exchange carriers, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 91-10-06, on behalf of the Connecticut Office of the Consumer Counsel, filed October 30, 1992, cross-examined November 4, 1992. Joint petition of New England Telephone and Telegraph Company and Department of Public Service seeking a second extension of the Vermont Telecommunications Agreement, Vermont Public Service Board 5614, Public Contract Advocate, filed December 15, 1992, cross-examined December 21, 1992. Application of the Southern New England Telephone Company to amend its rates and rate structure, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 92-09-19, on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, filed March 26, 1993 and May 19, 1993, cross-examined May 25, 1993. In the matter of the Application of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company for Approval of an Alternative Form of Regulation and for a Threshold Increase in Rates, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 93-432-TP-ALT, on behalf of Time Warner AxS, filed March 2, 1994. Matters relating to IntraLATA Toll Competition and Access Rate Structure, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission Docket 1995, on behalf of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission Staff, filed March 28, 1994 and June 9, 1994, cross-examined August 1, 1994. In the Matter of the Application of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company for Approval of an Alternative Form of Regulation, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 93-487-TP-ALT, on behalf of Time Warner AxS, filed May 5, 1994, cross-examined August 11, 1994. In Re: Universal Service Proceeding: The Cost of Universal Service and Current Sources of Universal Service Support, Tennessee Public Service Commission Docket No. 95-02499, on behalf of Time Warner AxS of Tennessee, L.P., filed October 18, 1995 and October 25, 1995, cross-examined October 27, 1995. In Re: Universal Service Proceeding: Alternative Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Tennessee Public Service Commission Docket No. 95-02499, on behalf of Time Warner AxS of Tennessee, L.P., filed October 30, 1995 and November 3, 1995, cross-examined November 7, 1995. In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for Authority to Increase its Rates and Charge for Regulated Title 61 Services, Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case No. USW-S-96-5, on behalf of the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, filed November 26, 1996 and February 25, 1997, cross-examined March 19, 1997. A Petition by the Regulatory Operations Staff to Open an Investigation into the Procedures and Methodologies that Should Be Used to Develop Costs for Bundled or Unbundled Telephone Services or Service Elements in the State of Nevada, Nevada Public Service Commission Docket No. 96-9035, on Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 5 behalf of AT&T Communications of Nevada, Inc., filed May 23, 1997, cross-examined June 6, 1997. Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Govern Open Access to Bottleneck Services and Establish a Framework for Network Architecture; Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into Open Access and Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks, California Public Utilities Commission R.93-04-003 and I.93-04-002, co-authored a declaration on behalf of AT&T Communications of California, Inc., and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, filed on December 15, 1997 and on February 11, 1998. Consolidated Petitions for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy, DPU 96-73/74. 96-75, 96-80/81, 96-83, and 96-84, on behalf of AT&T Communications of New England, Inc. and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, filed February 3, 1998. In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for Specific Forms of Price Regulation, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 97-A-540T, on behalf of the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel, filed on April 16, 1998, May 14, 1998 and May 27, 1998, cross-examined June 2, 1998. Joint Application of SBC Communications and Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation for Approval of a Change of Control, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 98- 02-20, on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, filed May 7, 1998 and June 12, 1998, cross-examined June 15-16, 1998. Fourth Annual Price Cap Filing of Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy Docket DTE 98-67, on behalf of MCI Telecommunications Corporation, filed September 11, 1998 and September 25, 1998, cross-examined October 22, 1998. Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control, Federal Communications Commission CC Docket No. 98-141, co-sponsored affidavit on behalf of Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor, Michigan Attorney General, Missouri Public Counsel, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Texas Public Utility Counsel and Utility Reform Network, filed on October 13, 1998. In the Matter of the Joint Application of SBC Communications Inc., SBC Delaware, Inc., Ameritech Corporation and Ameritech Ohio for Consent and Approval of a Change of Control, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No.98-1082-TP-AMT, on behalf of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, filed on December 10, 1998, cross-examined on January 22, 1999. GTE Corporation, Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corporation, Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control, Federal Communications Commission CC Docket No. 98-184, co-sponsored an affidavit on behalf of a coalition of consumer advocates from Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia, and Michigan, filed on December 18, 1998. In the Matter of the Joint Application of GTE and Bell Atlantic to Transfer Control of GTE’s California Utility Subsidiaries to Bell Atlantic, Which Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of GTE’s Merger with Bell Atlantic, California Public Utilities Commission A. 98-12-005, on behalf of the California Office of Ratepayer Advocate, filed on June 7, 1999. In the Matter of the Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion Into All Matters Relating to the Merger of Ameritech Corporation and SBC Communications Inc., Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Cause No. 41255, on behalf of the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, filed on June 22, 1999 and July 12, 1999, cross-examined July 20, 1999. Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 6
In re Application of Bell Atlantic Corporation and GTE Corporation for Approval of the GTE Corporation - Bell Atlantic Corporation Merger, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission UT-981367, on behalf of the Washington Attorney General Public Counsel Section, filed on August 2, 1999. Application of New York Telephone Company for Alternative Rate Regulation, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 99-03-06, on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, filed October 22, 1999. In re: Area Code 515 Relief Plan, Iowa Utilities Board Docket No. SPU-99-22, on behalf of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, filed November 8, 1999, and December 3, 1999, cross-examined December 14, 1999. In re Application of MCI WorldCom, Inc. and Central Telephone Company - Nevada, d/b/a Sprint of Nevada, and other Sprint entities for Approval of Transfer of Control pursuant to NRS 704.329, Nevada Public Utilities Commission Application No. 99-12029, on behalf of the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, filed April 20, 2000. In re: Area Code 319 Relief Plan, Iowa Utilities Board Docket No. SPU-99-30, on behalf of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, filed June 26, 2000 and July 24, 2000. In re: Sprint Communications Company, L.P. & Level 3 Communications, L.L.C., Iowa Utilities Board Docket Nos. SPU-02-11 & SPU-02-13, on behalf of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, filed October 14, 2002 and January 6, 2003, cross-examined February 5, 2003. Illinois Bell Telephone Company filing to increase unbundled loop and nonrecurring rates (tariffs filed December 24, 2002), Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 02-0864, on behalf of Citizens Utility Board, filed May 6, 2003 and February 20, 2004. Qwest Petition for Competitive Classification of Business Services, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Docket No. 030614, on behalf of Public Counsel, filed August 13, 2003 and August 29, 2003, cross-examined September 18, 2003. In the Matter of the Application of CenturyTel of Northwest Arkansas, LLC for Approval of a General Change in Rates and Tariffs, Arkansas Public Service Commission Docket No. 03-041-U, on behalf of the Attorney General, filed October 9, 2003 and November 20, 2003. In the Matter of the Board’s Review of Unbundled Network Elements, Rates, Terms and Conditions of Bell Atlantic New Jersey, Inc., New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TO00060356, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed January 23, 2004. In the Matter of the Implementation of the Federal Communications Commission’s Triennial Review Order, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TO03090705, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed February 2, 2004. Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Local Exchange Carriers, Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01- 338, sponsored affidavit on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed October 4, 2004. Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Local Exchange Carriers, Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01- 338, sponsored affidavit on behalf of the Utah Committee of Consumer Services, filed October 4, 2004. In the Matter of Verizon New Jersey, Inc. For a Revision of Tariff B.P.U.-N.J. – No. 2 Providing for a Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 7
Revenue Neutral Rate Restructure Including a Restructure of Residence and Business Basic Exchange Service and Elimination of $.65 Credit, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TT04060442, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed December 22, 2004 and January 18, 2005. In the Matter of the Application of Verizon New Jersey, Inc. for Approval (I) of a New Plan for an Alternative Form of Regulation and (II) to Reclassify Multi-Line Rate Regulated Business Services as Competitive Services, and Compliance Filing, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TO01020095, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed January 10, 2005 and February 4, 2005. Joint Petition of SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp., Together with its Certificated Subsidiaries for Approval of Merger, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TM05020168, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed May 4, 2005 and June 1, 2005. In the Matter of Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc., Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 05-75, co-sponsored affidavit on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed on May 9, 2005. In the Matter of the Application of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a SBC Arkansas to Set Rates for Unbundled Network Elements, Arkansas Public Service Commission Docket No. 04-109-U, on behalf of the Attorney General, filed May 27, 2005. Joint Petition of Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. for Approval of Merger, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TM05030189, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed July 8, 2005 and August 19, 2005. In the Matter of Joint Petition of United Telephone Company of New Jersey, Inc. d/b/a Sprint and LTD Holding Company for Approval Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:2-51 and N.J.S.A. 48:3-10 of a change in Ownership and Control, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TM05080739, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed November 29, 2005. In the Matter of the Board’s Review of the Classification of Verizon New Jersey’s Directory Assistance Services (“DAS”) as Competitive and Associated Service Quality, Docket No. TX06010057, In the Matter of the Filing by Verizon New Jersey Inc. for the Reclassification of Existing Rate Regulated Services – Directory Assistance Services as Competitive, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Docket No. TT97120889, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed May 12, 2006. In the Matter of AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 06-74, sponsored declaration with Sarah M. Bosley on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate, filed June 5, 2006; sponsored declaration with Sarah M. Bosley and Timothy E. Howington on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, October 3, 2006. In the Matter of Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, CC Docket No. 80-286, sponsored affidavit on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed August 22, 2006. In the Matter of the Board Investigation Regarding the Reclassification of Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) Services as Competitive, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TX06120841, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed January 7, 2007, January 30, 2007, and February 20, 2007. Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., NYNEX Long Distance Company, Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 8
Verizon Select Services Inc. and FairPoint Communications, Inc. Joint Petition for Authority to Transfer Assets and Franchise to FairPoint Communications, Inc., New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Docket No. DT-07-011, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advocate, filed August 1, 2007, cross- examined November 1, 2007. In the Matter of the Commission’s Investigation into Verizon Maryland, Inc.’s Affiliate Relationships, Maryland Public Service Commission Case No. 9120, on behalf of the Office of People’s Counsel, filed October 29, 2007 and November 19, 2007, cross-examined November 28, 2007. In the Matter of the Board Investigation Regarding the Reclassification of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Services as Competitive, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TX07110873, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed December 14, 2007, January 10, 2008. In the Matter of Verizon Washington, DC Inc.’s Price Cap Plan 2007 for the Provision of Local Telecommunications Services in the District of Columbia, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia Formal Case No. 1057, on behalf of the District of Columbia Office of People’s Counsel, filed December 20, 2007, January 31, 2008. In re Possible Extension of Board Jurisdiction over Single Line Flat-Rated Residential and Business Rates for Local Exchange Carriers, Iowa Utilities Board Docket No. INU-08-1, on behalf of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, filed March 17, 2008, April 28, 2008, cross-examined May 22, 2008. Petition of the Office of Consumer Counsel for Enforcement of Quality of Service Standards for the Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 08-07-15, on behalf of the Communications Workers of America, Local 1298, filed January 30, 2009, cross-examined February 25, 2009. In the Matter of the Board’s Investigation and Review of Local Exchange Carrier Intrastate Exchange Access Rates, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TX08090830, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed February 13, 2009, April 20, 2009, and June 22, 2009, cross- examined October 20, 2009. In the Matter of Appropriate Forms Of Regulating Telephone Companies, Maryland Public Service Commission, Case No. 9133, on behalf of the Communications Workers of America, filed June 1, 2009, October 16, 2009, October 30, 2009, cross-examined November 4, 2009. Petition of the Office of Consumer Counsel for Enforcement of Quality of Service Standards for the Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 08-07-15PH02, on behalf of the Communications Workers of America, Local 1298, filed September 21, 2009. In the Matter of the Application of Frontier Communications Corporation, New Communications Holdings, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. for Consent and Approval of a Change in Control, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 09-454-TP-ACO, on behalf of the Communications Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 986, filed October 14, 2009. Frontier Communications Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon North Inc., Verizon South Inc., New Communications of the Carolinas, Inc. Joint Application for the approval of a Reorganization, Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 09-0268, on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 21, 51, and 702, filed October 20, 2009. In re Verizon Service Quality in Western Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable D.T.C. 09-1, on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General, filed Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 9
November 9, 2009, February 24, 2010, cross-examined March 31, 2010, April 1, 2010, May 21, 2010. Joint Application of Frontier Communications Corporation and Verizon West Virginia Inc. and certain affiliates for approval of the transfer of Verizon’s local exchange and long distance business in West Virginia to companies to be owned and controlled by Frontier Communications Corporation, Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case No. 09-0871-T-PC, on behalf of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed November 16, 2009. In the Matter of Qwest Communications Company and CenturyTel, Inc. for Approval of Control of Qwest Communications Company LLC, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TM10050343, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed September 23, 2010. Petition of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator on behalf of the Pennsylvania Telecommunications Industry for Approval of Numbering Plan Area Relief Planning for the 814 NPA, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Docket No. P-2009-2112925, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, filed May 23, 2011, cross-examined May 24, 2011. In re Applications of AT&T, Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG for Consent to the Transfer of Control of the Licenses and Authorizations Held by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and its Subsidiaries to AT&T Inc., WT Docket No. 11-65, File Nos. 0004669383, et al., sponsored declarations on behalf of the new Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, May 31, 2011, and June 20, 2011. In the Matter of Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC For Consent To Assign Licenses and Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Cox TMI Wireless, LLC For Consent To Assign Licenses, WT Docket No. 12-4, sponsored declarations on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed February 17, 2012, and March 26, 2012. In the Matter of the Board’s Investigation Regarding the Reclassification of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Services as Competitive – Phase II, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. TX11090570, on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed February 24, 2012, April 27, 2012, and June 11, 2012, cross-examined July 17, 2012. Petition of David K. Ebersole, Jr. and the Office of Consumer Advocate for a Declaratory Order that Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Has Not Met Its Legal Obligation to the Greensburg Bona Fide Retail Request Group Pursuant to Its Chapter 30 Plan, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Docket No. P-2012- 2323362, affidavit on behalf of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, September 6, 2012. In the Matter of Commission Consideration Of Effective Competition Areas and the Classification of Basic Local Exchange Service, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Proceeding Number 13M-0422T, Pursuant to 4 CCR 723-2-2213, answer testimony on behalf of AARP, December 6, 2013, cross- examined January 7, 2014. PURA Establishment of Rules for Electric Suppliers and EDCs Concerning Operations and Marketing in the Electric Retail Market, Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Docket No. 13-07-18, testimony and supplemental testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, March 10, 2014 and March 17, 2014, cross-examined March 27, 2014. Joint Application of Frontier Communications Corporation and AT&T Inc. for Approval of a Change in Control, Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Docket No. 14-01-46, testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, May 23, 2014, cross-examined June 30, 2014. The Utility Reform Network, Complainant vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T California (U1001C); AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (U5002C), Defendants, California Public Utilities Commission Case No. 13-12-005, Complaint of the Utility Reform Network Regarding Basic Service Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 10
Rates of AT&T California (Public Utilities Code Section 1702; Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 4.1(b)), December 6, 2013, initial and rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Utility Reform Network (TURN), August 22, 2014 and October 3, 2014. Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of all Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas, and for a Waiver of Regulation for Competitive Services, Pennsylvania PUC Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303 and P-2014-2446304, direct and surrebuttal testimony on behalf of Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, November 14, 2014, and December 12, 2014, cross-examined December 16, 2014. Joint Application of Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC, and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC for Expedited Approval of Indirect Transfer of Control of Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC, (U-68740-C); and The Pro Forma Transfer of Control of Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (U-6955-C) to Comcast Corporation, Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 854(A), Application No. 14-04-013 (filed April 11, 2014), initial and reply testimony on behalf of the Utility Reform Network (TURN), December 3, 2014 and December 10, 2014. In the Matter of the Joint Application of Frontier Communications Corporation, Frontier Communications of America, Inc. (U 5429 C), Verizon California Inc. (U 1002 C), Verizon Long Distance, LLC (U 5732), and Newco West Holdings LLC for Approval of Transfer of Control Over Verizon California Inc. and Related Approval of Transfer of Assets and Certifications (Filed March 18, 2015), Application 15-03- 005, reply and supplemental testimony on behalf of the Utility Reform Network (TURN), July 28, 2015 and September 11, 2015. Order Instituting Investigation to Assess the State of Competition Among Telecommunications Providers in California, and to Consider and Resolve Limited Rehearing of Decision (D.) 08-09-042, California Public Utilities Commission Investigation 15-11-007 (November 5, 2015), testimony on behalf of the Utility Reform Network (TURN), March 15, 2016, June 1, 2016 and July 15, 2016; participated in Expert Panel, July 20, 2016. Petition of Communications Workers of America for a Public, On-the-Record Commission Investigation of the Safety, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Service Provided by Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, Pennsylvania PUC Docket No. P-2015-2509336, direct testimony on behalf of Communications Workers of America, September 29, 2016.
Testimony before State Legislatures:
Testified on September 24, 1997, before the Massachusetts State Legislature Joint Committee on Government Regulations regarding House Bill 4937 (concerning area codes).
Testified on March 2, 2010, before the Maryland State Legislature Senate Finance Committee regarding Senate Bill 677 (concerning Telephone Landline Sale Bill).
Testified on March 11, 2010, before the Maryland State Legislature House Economic Matters Committee regarding House Bill 937 (concerning Telephone Landline Sale Bill).
Testified on June 25, 2013, on behalf of AARP, before the Ohio Select Committee on Telecommunications Regulatory Reform (regarding SB 162). Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 11
Testified on December 12, 2013, on behalf of AARP, before the Pennsylvania House Consumer Affairs Committee (regarding House Bill 1608).
Reports/Publications/Presentations
Expert reports in tax matters, reports and publications on telecommunications and energy policy in trade journals, and presentations at industry associations and conferences include the following:
Expert reports in tax matters:
Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, In the Matter of Cable One, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue, DIA 10DORFC014, SBTR Nos. 899 and 903, Property Tax Assessment, Expert Report, January 21, 2011 (on behalf of the Iowa Department of Revenue), deposed February 9, 2011.
Level 3 Communications, LLC. v. Arizona Department of Revenue; Coshise County; Graham County; Greenlee County; La Paz County; Maricopa County; Mohave County; Pima Count, Pinal County and Yuma County, Superior Court of the State of Arizona in the Arizona Tax Court, No. TX-2007-000594, Expert Report, May 20, 2011 (on behalf of the Arizona Department of Revenue), deposed July 14, 2011; cross-examined August 24, 2012.
Bresnan Communications, LLC, Plaintiff, v. State of Montana Department of Revenue, Defendant, Cause No. DV-10-1312, July 5, 2011(on behalf of the Montana Department of Revenue), deposed July 29, 2011.
Verizon California Inc., Plaintiff, v. California Board of Equalization, Defendants, December 18, 2015 (on behalf of the California Board of Equalization), deposed January 20, 2016.
Reports and Publications:
“The Cable-Telco Duopoly’s Deployment of New Jersey’s Information Infrastructure: Establishing Accountability” (with Sarah M. Bosley and Timothy E. Howington). Prepared for the Public Advocate of New Jersey, January 19, 2007.
“Assessing SBC/Pacific’s Progress in Eliminating Barriers to Entry: The Local Market in California Is Not Yet ‘Fully and Irreversibly Open’” (with Patricia D. Kravtin, Dr. Lee L. Selwyn, and Douglas S. Williams). Prepared for the California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies, July 2000.
“Where Have All the Numbers Gone? (Second Edition): Rescuing the North American Numbering Plan from Mismanagement and Premature Exhaust” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, June 2000.
“Price Cap Plan for USWC: Establishing Appropriate Price and Service Quality Incentives for Utah” (with Patricia D. Kravtin and Scott C. Lundquist). Prepared for the Utah Division of Public Utilities, March 22, 2000.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 12
“Telephone Numbering: Establishing a Policy for the District of Columbia to Promote Economic Development” (with Douglas S. Williams and Sarah C. Bosley). Prepared for the District of Columbia Office of People’s Counsel, February 2000 (submitted to Eric W. Price, Deputy Mayor, April 6, 2000).
“The Use of Cost Proxy Models to Make Implicit Support Explicit, Assessing the BCPM and the Hatfield Model 3.1” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, March 1997.
“The Use of Forward-Looking Economic Cost Proxy Models” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC Docket No. CCB/CPB 97-2, February 1997.
“Continuing Evaluation of Cost Proxy Models for Sizing the Universal Service Fund, Analysis of the Similarities and Differences between the Hatfield Model and the BCM2” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, October 1996.
“Converging on a Cost Proxy Model for Primary Line Basic Residential Service, A Blueprint for Designing a Competitively Neutral Universal Service Fund" (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, August 1996.
“The Phone Wars and How to Win Them” (with Helen E. Golding). Planning, July 1996 (Volume 62, Number 7).
“The BCM Debate, A Further Discussion” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn and Helen E. Golding). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, May 1996.
“The Cost of Universal Service, A Critical Assessment of the Benchmark Cost Model” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Cable Television Association, submitted in FCC CC Docket No. 96- 45, April 1996.
“Funding Universal Service: Maximizing Penetration and Efficiency in a Competitive Local Service Environment” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for Time Warner Communications, Inc., October 1995.
“A Balanced Telecommunications Infrastructure Plan for New York State” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the New York User Parties, December 4, 1992.
“A Roadmap to the Information Age: Defining a Rational Telecommunications Plan for Connecticut” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn, Susan M. Gately, JoAnn S. Hanson, David N. Townsend, and Scott C. Lundquist). Prepared for the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, October 30, 1992.
“ISDN Rate-Setting in Massachusetts.” Business Communications Review, June 1992 (Volume 22, No. 6).
“Analysis of Local Exchange Carrier April 1988 Bypass Data Submissions” (with William P. Montgomery and Dr. Lee L. Selwyn). Prepared for the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, August 1988.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 13
“Tariff Data is Critical to Network Management.” Telecommunications Products and Technology, May 1988 (Volume 6, No. 5).
“Strategic Planning for Corporate Telecommunications in the Post-Divestiture Era: A Five Year View” (with Dr. Lee L. Selwyn, William P. Montgomery, and David N. Townsend). Report to the International Communications Association, December 1986.
“Competitive Pricing Analysis of Interstate Private Line Services.” Prepared for the National Telecommunications Network, June 1986.
“Analysis of Diamond State Telephone Private Line Pricing Movements: 1980-1990.” Prepared for Network Strategies, Inc., April 1985.
“Analysis of New York Telephone Private Line Pricing Movements: 1980-1990.” Prepared for Network Strategies, Inc., February 1985.
“Auction Methods for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve” (With Steven Kelman and Richard Innes). Prepared for Harvard University Energy Security Program, July 1983.
“How Two New England Cities Got a $100 Million Waste-to-Energy Project” (with Diane Schwartz). Planning, March 1983 (Volume 49, Number 3).
“Evaluation of Economic Development and Energy Program in Lawrence, Massachusetts.” (with Richard Innes). Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, August, 1982.
“Energy Efficiency in New England’s Rental Housing.” New England Regional Commission, 1981.
“Low Level Radioactive Waste Management in New England.” New England Regional Commission, 1981.
“The Realtor's Guide to Residential Energy Efficiency.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Association of Realtors, 1980.
Presentations:
“Back to Basics: What Specific Consumer Protections Are Still Needed in Telecommunications Regulation?,” Presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners 21st Annual Education Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, June 23, 2016.
“The Three Rs: The Need for Reliable, Redundant and Resilient Telecommunications in the New Age,” 2015 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Annual Meeting, Austin, Texas, November 9, 2015.
“Telecommunications in Transition: Advocating for 50+ Consumers in the Brave New World,” Presentation at AARP’s State Advocacy and Strategy Integration conference on “State Regulatory and Legislative Landscapes,” Portland, Oregon, September 16, 2014.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 14
“What the IP Transition Means for Consumers and a Ubiquitous, Affordable, Reliable National Communications System,” 2014 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Mid-Year Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico, June 2, 2014.
“For Sale - The National Wireline Communications System,” 2014 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Mid-Year Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico, June 3, 2014.
“FCC Review of Verizon’s Section 214 Application and Its Implications for the IP Transition,” NASUCA Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 19, 2013.
“What gets lost in the IP Transition?” NASUCA Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 18, 2013.
“Service Outage and Restoration,” NARUC Staff panel, NARUC 125th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 16, 2013.
“You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Til It’s Gone – Utilities Consumer Protections,” Presentation at AARP’s State Advocacy and Strategy Integration conference on “Fighting for Consumers,” Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 19, 2013.
“Protecting Consumers’ Assets and Income,” Presentation at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Policy Institute on “The Changing Dynamics of the Latino 50+ Population,” Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 25, 2013.
“Federalism in the 21st Century,” Presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners 18th Annual Education Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, June 24, 2013.
“Trials for the Transition from TDM to IP,” Presentation at the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners 66th Annual Symposium, Groton, Connecticut, June 11, 2013.
“The 1996 Telecom Act Today: Universal, affordable, reliable access to telecommunications for all. Does the federal-state partnership still exist?” AARP Telecommunications Summit, Pew Center for Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC, July 18, 2012.
“Issues and Ramifications Arising From the FCC’s Connect America Fund Order Affecting High Cost Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation,” 2012 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Mid-Year Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, June 24, 2012.
“FCC Lifeline/Link Up Reform Order – What will it mean for regulators, consumers, and companies?” Presentation at the Mid-America Regulatory Conference, Des Moines, Iowa, June 11, 2012.
“Improving the Separations Process: Consumer Impact,” panelist for Federal-State Joint Board on Separations on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, September 24, 2010, CC Docket No. 80-286, Washington, DC.
“The Evolving Role of State Regulation in a Changing Industry,” Presentation at the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners 63th Annual Symposium, Brewster, Massachusetts, May 17, 2010.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 15
“Broadband: Where it is, where it ain’t, and where it oughta be,” June 29, 2009, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Mid-Year Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts.
“Deregulation and Price Increases: The Hallmarks of a Competitive Market?” November 18, 2008; 2008 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.
“Forbearance: What is it? What’s wrong with it? How to fix it,” November 12, 2007; “Net Neutrality – Not Dead Yet!,” November 13, 2007; 2007 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California.
“FCC’s Regulatory Stance – Consumer Advocates’ Role More Important Than Ever,” 2005 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Winter Meeting, March 2, 2005, Washington, D.C.
“Impact of Federal Regulatory Developments on Consumers and Consumers’ Impact on Regulatory Developments,” Presentation for the Washington Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington, May 27, 2003.
“The Finances of Local Competition” Presentation at the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners 54th Annual Symposium, Mystic, Connecticut, May 21, 2001.
“Facilities-Based Competition” Presentation at the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners 52nd Annual Symposium, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, May 24, 1999.
“Exploring Solutions for Number Exhaust on the State Level” and “A Forum for Clarification and Dialogue on Numbering Ideas,” ICM Conference on Number Resource Optimization, New Orleans, Louisiana, December 10-11, 1998.
“Telecommunications Mergers: Impact on Consumers,” AARP Legislative Council 1998 Roundtable Meeting, Washington, D.C., November 18, 1998 .
“Consumer Perspectives on Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Mergers,” National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 110th Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida, November 11, 1998.
Federal Communications Commission En Banc Hearing on “Proposals to Revised the Methodology for Determining Universal Service Support,” CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-160,” June 8, 1998, panelist.
“Universal Service: Real World Applications,” 1997 National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates Mid-Year Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, June 9, 1997.
“Modeling operating and support expenses” and “Modeling capital expenses,” panelist for Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Staff Workshops on Proxy Cost Models, January 14-15, 1997, CC Docket 96-45.
“Evaluating the BCM2: An Assessment of Its Strengths and Weaknesses,” presentation to the AT&T Cost Team (with Michael J. DeWinter), December 4, 1996.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 16
“Interpreting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mandate for the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Services in a Fiscally Responsible and Fully Informed Manner” (with Helen E. Golding), Proceedings of the Tenth NARUC Biennial Regulatory Information Conference, Volume 3, September 11-13, 1996.
“Making Adjustments to the BCM2.” Presentation to the Staff of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, September 16, 1996.
“Converging on a Model: An Examination of Updated Benchmark Cost Models and their Use in Support of Universal Service Funding.” Presentation to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Summer Committee Meetings, July 22, 1996.
“ETI's Corrections to and Sensitivity Analyses of the Benchmark Cost Model.” Presentation to the Staff of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,” May 30, 1996.
“Redefining Universal Service.” Presentation at the Telecommunications Reports conference on “Redefining Universal Service for a Future Competitive Environment,” Washington, D.C., January 18, 1996.
“Funding Universal Service: Maximizing Penetration and Efficiency in a Competitive Local Service Environment,” (with Lee L. Selwyn, under the direction of Donald Shepheard), a Time Warner Communications Policy White Paper, September 1995.
“Stranded Investment and the New Regulatory Bargain,” (with Lee L. Selwyn, under the direction of Donald Shepheard), a Time Warner Communications Policy White Paper, September 1995.
"New Frontiers in Regulation.” Presentation to the New England Women Economists Association, December 12, 1995.
“Local Cable and Telco Markets.” Presentation at the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners 46th Annual Symposium, Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, June 29, 1993.
“Relationship of Depreciation to State Infrastructure Modernization.” Presentation at the Telecommunications Reports conference on “Telecommunications Depreciation,” Washington, D.C., May 6, 1993.
“Crafting a Rational Path to the Information Age.” Presentation at the State of New Hampshire's conference on the “Twenty-First Century Telecommunications Infrastructure,” Durham, New Hampshire, April 1993.
“The Political Economics of ISDN,” presentation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government seminar on “Getting from Here to There: Building an Information Infrastructure in Massachusetts,” March 1993.
“The New Competitive Landscape: Collocation in Massachusetts.” Presentation at TeleStrategies Conference on Local Exchange Competition, Washington, D.C., November 1991.
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Page 17
“Telecommunications Policy Developments in Massachusetts.” Presentations to the Boston Area Telecommunications Association, October 1989; March 1990; November 1990; June 1992. Presentation to the New England Telecommunications Association, March 1990.
“How to Capitalize on the New Tariffs.” Presentation at Communications Managers Association conference, 1988.
Advisor to:
United States General Accounting Office Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Characteristics and Competitiveness of the Internet Backbone Market, GAO-02-16, October 2001. APPENDIX B
REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION:
JANUARY 2011 THROUGH AUGUST 8, 2016
Introduction
Between January 2011 and early August 2016, over a thousand consumers
submitted complaints to the Public Service Commission (“PSC” or “Commission”)
regarding the quality of Verizon Maryland LLC (Verizon Md.)’s basic local telephone
service.1 I summarize my review and analysis of these approximately 1,200 complaints to the PSC in this appendix and in Appendices C-1 through C-3, particularly as they illustrate and inform the concerns and recommendations that I discuss in my affidavit.
The complaints are grouped by date, in part to show that little has changed over the years, and that the concerns remain current. For the most part, my review focuses on complaints raised by residential consumers, although my review shows that poor service quality is also harming small businesses.
It takes effort to submit complaints, and, therefore, it is important to recognize that many more consumers likely are enduring poor service quality than the numbers that
I tallied for my review would suggest. Rather than being merely “anecdotal,” and thus easily dismissed as isolated concerns, consumer complaints provide a valuable perspective about the consequences of Verizon Md.’s apparent neglect of its copper
1 I also reviewed complaints submitted to the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection; Howard County, Department of Citizen Services, Office of Consumer Affairs; Office of the Attorney General; and the OPC as well as the well-documented complaint to the PSC by one individual. I discuss these other complaints in Appendices D and E. 1 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission network for Maryland consumers, and about Verizon Md.’s seemingly confusing (at best)
and misleading (at worst) policies regarding its migration of customers from copper-
based to fiber-based service, particularly as such migration affects Verizon Md.’s
maintenance of its copper network during this transitional time.
In response to three different Public Information Requests submitted by the Office of People’s Counsel (“OPC”), the PSC provided the following sets of consumer complaints regarding the quality of Verizon Md.’s basic local service:
1. Approximately 240 complaints spanning October 2, 2015 through August 8,
2016;
2. Approximately 160 complaints spanning January 1, 2014 through October 19,
2015; and
3. Approximately 800 complaints spanning January 6, 2011 to January 15,
2014.2
These approximately 1,200 complaints raise significant public policy concerns, which
I discuss in my affidavit. The PSC’s role in collecting and seeking to resolve consumer
complaints is an important one, which likely enhances the accountability of Verizon Md.
to its customers. However, the complaint process necessarily shifts the burden to
consumers, and therefore, more comprehensive regulatory remedies that can prevent the
seeming service quality deterioration would be preferable to relying solely on the
complaint process to protect consumers.
2 The numbers seem to average 16 to 24 complaints per month. 2 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission The complaints that I recommend the Commission specifically take into account are
from customers:
• Who have repeatedly requested repair of their dial tone lines, with problems
sometimes being triggered by rainy weather, some of whom specifically mention
they live in rural areas;
• Reporting “NDT” indicating no service / no dial tone;
• Reporting poor quality of phone service (hum or static on line);
• Requesting repair of their copper rather than being migrated to FiOS and/or fiber3
services due to the frequency of power outages;
• Requesting copper due to safety concerns;
• Experiencing a service quality problem and being told that s/he must switch to
FiOS and/or fiber to get the problem fixed;
• Experiencing a service quality problem and being told by a technician that
Verizon Md. is not fixing copper dial tone lines any more;
• Stating that s/he was switched to FiOS without her/his permission;
• Experiencing poor customer service such as long times on hold; repeated calls to
Verizon Md. without any resolution; failure of Verizon Md. to return calls;
rudeness by Verizon Md. employees; and
3 FiOS is Verizon’s brand name for its fiber services that include Internet, TV and digital Voice. Verizon Md. also provides regulated voice services over its fiber network. While the terms FiOS and fiber voice are often used interchangeably in the PSC complaints and elsewhere, they are not the same. I have attempted to differentiate in some cases, but refer to both in most cases. 3 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission • Who could be considered particularly vulnerable (diabetic, elderly, medical
conditions, house arrest, and one was a heart surgeon who needed reliability to be
able to help his patients).
Complaints spanning October 2, 2015 through August 8, 2016
I reviewed 239 complaints that the PSC received between October 2, 2015 and
August 8, 2016,4 approximately one-third of which concern malfunctioning or non-
functioning dial tone lines. In a few instances, the PSC’s complaint intake form shows
the resolution of the complaint but many of the PSC’s complaint intake forms do not
show if or how the complaints were resolved. Sometimes the resolutions superficially
“solve” the customer’s specific problem but the complaint underscores the need for a
more comprehensive resolution such as preventive network maintenance. Complaints
describe customers’ repeated efforts to obtain long-lasting repair of apparently defective
cable, and also suggest that if customers had not sought out the assistance of the PSC, the
resolution would have taken even longer to occur.
The resolution for one complaint (No. 95 in the 2105/2016 set), in addition to the
line’s repair, was a customer credit of $4.27 for the apparent six-day period that the
phone service did not function. This can hardly be considered to be adequate
compensation for the aggravation and lack of service experienced by the customer.
4 The PSC submitted five electronic files to the OPC in response to the information request. I reviewed the file entitled “all codes.” I did not review the files corresponding respectively to the following PSC classifying codes: 1144 (no jurisdiction); 3318 (DSL and Internet); 3320 (ISP), and 3329 (VoIP).
4 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Sixteen of the 78 complaints that relate to non-functioning dial tone lines raise serious concerns about the way in which Verizon Md. is conducting its migration from copper to fiber, with customers complaining of being forced to migrate to FiOS and/or fiber or being told that Verizon Md. would not fix their copper lines because the customers were supposed to “opt” for FiOS and/or fiber service. One customer specifically questioned how the copper abandonment is supposed to work. These complaints illustrate the lack of transparency about Verizon Md.’s copper retirement plans and the seemingly arbitrary information and sometimes misinformation that
Verizon Md.’s representatives are giving consumers about the copper-to-fiber migration process.
With reference to one complaint that described Verizon Md.’s attempt to replace copper dial tone line with VoiceLink service, the PSC’s intake form indicated that the
PSC does not have jurisdiction over VoiceLink,5 a statement that merits closer
examination: in my view, the PSC does and should have jurisdiction over when, where,
and how Verizon Md. deploys VoiceLink in lieu of repairing faulty copper dial tone
lines.
Appendix C-1 includes verbatim excerpts from the complaints during this most
recent time span, and Table 1, below, summarizes my classification of these 237
5 Complaint 84 (PSC No. 516318751, dated May 10, 2016); see Appendix C-1 for a reproduction of the PSC’s intake form for this consumer complaint. See also Complaint 57 (No. 115208857), dated January 14, 2015, reproduced in Appendix C-2, which also describes Verizon Md.’s proposed use of VoiceLink to resolve a problem with its copper network. 5 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission complaints.6 Of the 78 complaints concerning the repair of the dial tone line, nine also
complained about poor customer service and long wait times,7 with one customer stating:
“We have spent more than 8 hours on the phone with Verizon Md. service people.” Five
complaints did not concern problems with dial tone line repair, but related to Verizon
Md.’s attempt to migrate or its actual migration of customers from copper to fiber.
Twelve of the 78 complaints about non-functioning dial tone lines appeared to be
associated with small businesses. The Commission flagged some other complaints as
“outage” complaints, which may relate to issues with outside plant, but I tallied those in
the “other” category, making my tally of service quality complaints conservative (biased
downward).
6 No. 24 appears to be a duplicate of No. 22, and No. 70 appears to be a duplicate of No. 69. Some complaints are classified as 1034 (outage) and I have classified those as “others” though in some instances it appears that the lack of repair is the cause of the outage. 7 The PSC flags these complaints with the “1138” code. Many more complaints were flagged with this code, which designates poor customer service, but I tallied only those that also pertained to those complaints that also concerned dial tone line repair. 6 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Table 1
Complaints between October 2, 2015 and August 8, 2016:
Approximately One in Three Concern Non-Functioning Copper Landlines
Number in Complaint Category Category
Copper landline not functioning (repeated calls, antiquated 62 copper, bad when it rains); no reference to FiOS Copper landline not functioning: Copper-to-Fiber migration issues: customer switched from copper to FiOS and/or fiber without 16 customer permission, told s/he must migrate to fiber, or threatened with disconnection if s/he does not opt for FiOS Total complaints regarding non-functioning copper landlines 78 Offered Voice Link instead of repair to copper line 1 Downed line, sagging lines, lines tangled in trees, broken pole, 16 open cable box; deep hole left in yard after FiOS installation FiOS up the road from consumer, but Verizon won't deploy FiOS to 1 consumer Customer wants to migrate from FiOS back to copper 1 Not a repair issue but customer told must convert to FiOS or 5 customer migrated to FiOS without customer approval
Billing disputes, including regarding FIOS and VoIP 55
Other 80
Total complaints 237
If the PSC complaint description included a specific reference to seemingly vulnerable customers (medical conditions, elderly person living alone, etc.), I recorded these
7 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission descriptions. Table 2, below, summarizes information about 15 such customers seeking
repair of their dial tone line and shows that that Verizon Md.’s apparent failure to provide
adequate service quality is harming customers for whom reliable access to emergency services is especially important.8
8 In some instances, the PSC has flagged these complaints with the designation: “1147: Medical condition at property.” See, e.g., Complaint No. 63. 8 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Table 2
Lack of Dial Tone Affects Vulnerable Customers
Subset of Customer Complaints to PSC Regarding NDT:
October 2, 2015 through August 8, 2016
Hearing loss; cell phone does not provide enough amplification "7 on oxygen" and senior citizen 69-year-old, lives alone with health issues Parkinson's, needs reliable service Elderly, cell service is poor, FiOS not in area On behalf of parents who are senior citizens and have no other form of communication available to them It is not appropriate to leave older people without a landline and without any way to contact someone in an emergency Senior citizen living alone Has diabetes and thyroid cancer and it is important to have phone Elderly mom staying with her with no phone service Customer is elderly and has not had voice service for at least two weeks (might be FiOS) Pediatrician's office cannot be reached during emergencies because of unfixed line Customer is 86 with "marginal" health, lives in remote area and depends on landline Elderly parent dying of cancer
87-year-old mother in house with no service
9 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Complaints spanning January 1, 2014 through October 19, 2015
I also reviewed 166 complaints to the PSC about Verizon Md.’s basic local service, which span January 2014 through October 2015, 159 of which were from residential customers.9 Of these 159 residential complaints, at least 58 concerned dial tone lines that did not function at all (under typical service quality reports, these would be considered “out-of-service” troubles) and at least 19 concerned static, hum, crackling
(under standard service quality reports, these would be considered “service affecting” troubles). In other words, as Table 3, below, shows, approximately half the complaints in this time period had to do with troubles being reported on dial tone lines.10
9 The PSC provided seven PDF file with complaints spanning January 1, 2014 through October 19, 2015. On October 8, 2015, Joyce R. Lombardi, Assistant People’s Counsel sent a Public Information Request to David J. Collins, Executive Secretary, Public Service Commission, requesting information from the Office of External Relations of the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act, Title 4 of the General Provisions of the Maryland Code. OPC requested information pursuant to its obligations under Section 2-204(a)(3), Public Utilities Article, Code of Maryland, to conduct investigations to protect the interests of residential and noncommercial users of utility services. OPC requested “all records in your custody and control pertaining to the following: (A) all complaints and/or comments made or received after January 1, 2014 to the present regarding Verizon Md.’s copper, fiber or FiOS facilities related to service quality, repair practices, marketing activities and/or migration of service from copper to fiber. (B) Any and all documents, notes or other information pertaining to how your office characterized, ranked, handled and/or assessed each of the Verizon Md. complaints produced in response to this request. (C) A compilation of all Verizon Md. complaint files received from January 1, 2014 to the present that the PSC has determined are outside its jurisdiction and has forwarded to the Maryland Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division. 10 The tallies are based on all 150 complaints included in the "1st" PSC file (all of which have the PSC designation of “1136”) and on 16 of the 27 complaints included in the "7th" PSC file (all of which have the PSC designation of “3333”). The complaints in the 1st and 7th file encompass some that are in both groups. The tallies in Tables 3 and 4 exclude the 27 complaints included in the "6th" PDF file provided by the PSC (all of which are classified only with the "3333" (i.e., FiOS) designation. The "7th" PDF file that the PSC provided includes 27 complaints that have been categorized as "7717" (that is, relating to copper versus fiber). However, ten of those complaints are also classified as "1136" (that is, relating to repair disputes) and therefore are already addressed in my review of the 1st PSC file, and one complaint refers to a “T1” line, which is a specialized dedicated circuit and therefore seemingly not germane to my analysis. My tallies, therefore, include the remaining 16 complaints in the "7th" file that are not also in the "1st" file that the PSC provided. 10 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Table 3
Complaints between January 2014 to October 2015:
Approximately Half the Residential Complaints Concern Dial Tone Problems
Trans- Number in Complaint Category Rude (PSC Pushing ferred to Category Code 1138) FiOS VoiceLink Copper landline problems - service affecting - static, hum, crackle, loud buzzing, loud roaring 19 1 4 Copper landline out of service (no dial tone) 58 11 10 1 Total complaints regarding non-functioning 77 12 14 1 copper landlines Has phone, TV and Internet; customer wants to keep 3 the copper phone 1 2 Customer migrated to FiOS or fiber without customer 6 consent Customer wants to migrate back from fiber to copper 2 Downed or sagging line outside; trees needing trimming; aging, leaning or double poles; temporary cable not removed 25 4 2 Verizon will not install copper in new development, or location 2 Customer wants to switch from Comcast to Verizon copper; told must get fiber or FiOS 1 Other, including billing disputes, non-functioning DSL, FiOS issues, damaged pedestal 43 5 1 Total Residential Complaints 159 22 17 3 Total Business Complaints 7 1 Total Complaints Reviewed in "1st" and "7th" PSC files 166 23 17 3
Many complaints also describe frustration, but unless these complaints have been designated as “1138” by the PSC, they are not reflected in the “rude” tally in the table. See, for example, No. 128, which the PSC did not classify as rude (and so I did not tally as rude), and which says: "She put me on hold; after 29 minutes the call disconnected." 11 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission
If the PSC complaint description included a specific reference to seemingly vulnerable
customers (medical conditions, elderly person living alone, etc.), I recorded these
descriptions. Table 4, below, summarizes information concerning 12 such customers
seeking repair of their dial tone line and shows that that Verizon Md.’s apparent failure to
provide adequate service quality is harming customers for whom reliable access to
emergency services is especially important.11
11 One customer, not included in Table 4 above (which encompasses only customers served by copper) stated: “Verizon ‘migrated’ our phone line from copper to fiber optic without notice or permission from us. We have a medical fragile child so we NEED to have phone service when electric power goes out due to storms. Fiber optic back up is only 8 hours because we have been DAYS without electric in our area we have copper line service.” Complaint#: 914204122 Date Filed: 09/26/2014 12 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Table 4
Lack of Dial Tone Affects Vulnerable Customers
Subset of Customer Complaints to PSC Regarding NDT:
January 2014 through October 2015
Customer needs a land line due to medical reasons Humming sound on mom's phone 88 yr. Old mom w life threatening conditions Customer and wife are in their 80's. Have not had working landline for 5 weeks. Need service on prior to Sunday. Medical condition My mom is 84 years old and need a working phone. It is now Thursday and still no dial tone 82 yr. Old Senior w heart condition Missed appt.,senior citizen, long wait on phone, frustrated,waiting for tech. to come today My fathers PACEMAKER is checked by this telephone and the phone needs to work, I could not get to a person via phone to stress the real need to have it working I'm hearing impaired. I can't make or receive [calls] to my medical doctors. Senior citizens I have a medical device that needs to be active. Verizon was contacted and I was informed that they would have it fixed on Tuesday under the emergency medical program. It is still not repaired. My cell phone has only 20 min/mo & it took 34 min to contact a live person 92 years old. Sent email to Governor saying: "Very Ill, Telephone out of order over 48 hours…. I don't want to be unable to call an ambulance"
13 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission Appendix C-2 includes illustrative excerpts from these complaints, which were included within the seven electronic files provided to the OPC by the PSC.12 The various complaints raise concerns such as the following:13
• Nineteen complaints from this time period document service affecting problems, such
as, “terrible static,” “loud hum,” “chronic noise,” and crackling. Still worse, 58 of the
complaints show that the problems were so severe that the customers lacked dial tone
functionality entirely. (These complaints may suggest defective or deteriorating
outside cable plant that needs repair.) Many of the complaints document weeks – or
even years – of such problems.
o Several complaints mentioned a failure to maintain the lines from moisture or
rodent damage, or failure to clear brush or tree limbs; One customer noticed
plastic bags wrapped around lines, retaining moisture.
12 File No. 1 includes 150 complaints. File No. 2 is a form letter dated August 1, 2012 from the PSC’s Office of External Relations that addresses complaints regarding Verizon Md.'s FiOS Digital Voice ('FDV') service. Among other things, the PSC indicates that it “regulates Verizon's traditional landline telephone service, not Verizon’s FDV service, and that the PSC “Commission does not have regulatory authority over high speed internet or cable television services which are bundled with Verizon’s FDV service.” The PSC’s form letter explains further that “Verizon's FDV service is considered Voice over Internet Protocol ('VoIP'),” and that the PSC “does not have jurisdiction over the regulation of VoIP service, including the imposition of regulatory fees, certification requirements, and the filing or approval of tariffs.” The PSC’s form letter further advises consumers that although it does not regulate the service, it has “made a record of your dispute against the company as required by the law” and has “forwarded your concerns to Verizon for investigation and response.” File No. 3 is a form letter dated October 19, 2015 from the PSC’s Office of External Relations that addresses complaints regarding Comcast Corporation and is similar in content to that in File No. 2. The form letter in File No. 3 states, among other things: “On May 17, 2007, a law had been enacted (2007 Md. Chap. 580) that requires the Commission, with input from AG and the Office of People’s Counsel (OPC), to track the number of consumer complaints received by these State agencies regarding the provision of VoIP services. In particular, the law requires that data be tracked effective October 1, 2007 regarding complaints concerning service outages, terminations without consumer consent, poor service, or billing disputes. This law also allows the Commission to report its findings and make recommendations to the General Assembly if at any time the Commission determines that additional consumer protections may be necessary for VoIP customers. File Nos. 4 and 5 appears to correspond with a record of the number of VoIP-related complaints. File No. 6 includes 27 complaints. File No. 7 includes 27 complaints. 13 My analysis of more recent complaints, summarized above, indicates that these concerns persist. 14 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission • Consumers need to make repeated calls to Verizon Md. (one customer called Verizon
Md. four times and it took three months and two technician visits to resolve and fix
the problem.) (These complaints suggest that Verizon Md. may be stalling on fixing
its outside plant, and that it may be implementing short-term “band-aid” fix to its
copper network.)
• Repairs, once PSC intervenes, are substantial, and include repairs to/from: Rodent
damage, cable pairs; outside/external wiring; pair crosses; cable connects;
rewire/defective aerial cable; rehab porting of cable; wet buried splice; line on ground
(burying exposed lines); replace outside protectors, and damaged conduits.
• Technician does not show up.
• Customer calls for copper repair; technician appears with work order to convert to
fiber (these complaints suggest that Verizon Md. may be failing to comply with the
FCC’s copper retirement rules).
• Quality of customer service: rude, long waits to talk with a Verizon Md.
representative.
• The complaints include at least six instances of forced unauthorized migration to fiber
or even FiOS Digital Voice and at least four instances of customers experiencing efforts
by Verizon Md. representatives to encourage them to migrate to fiber or FiOS rather
than to persist in seeking repair of their copper lines.
o Example: a disabled couple had two dead phone lines, received 9 ticket order
numbers over 28 days, tech “John L code gx-0) said tickets were bogus and
lines had been deliberately moved off copper, couple needs copper for
reliability 15 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission o Example, Verizon Md. switched family to fiber optic without permission but
family has a medically fragile child, needs copper, power outages common for
days there, spent hours and days on phone with Verizon Md. trying to get issue
resolved before complaining, techs never showed up at house
• Some customers cited incompatibility with home alarm systems as a reason for not
wanting fiber voice
. For example, one was a forced switch that Verizon Md. refused to
rectify until PSC got involved
. Another refused to switch and didn’t want to pay the extra $110 plus
$35/quarter to upgrade home alarm to global monitoring system
• In two instances Verizon Md. refused to install copper on new accounts
. Example, Verizon Md. refused to install copper service in home of
someone who needed to install a handicap elevator, because the person
had FIOS. About a month after the complaint to PSC, Verizon Md.
installed copper.
• Three customers indicate that they intentionally subscribe to copper-based voice in
combination with FiOS-based TV, andw hen they call to request repair of their copper
lines, they are automatically moved to fiber.
• Twelve of the complaints documented health and safety reasons for wanting copper,
such as an epileptic son, being a senior, home security service, medical alert system
Complaints spanning January 6, 2011 through January 15, 2014
16 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission The complaints that occurred between January 6, 2011 and January 15, 2014 and that relate to the issues I discuss in my affidavit fall into two main categories – Verizon Md.’s sales and marketing tactics for FiOS and/or fiber and its failure to maintain the quality of
its existing (copper) plant (including implicit and explicit representations that Verizon
Md. would not bother to fix the outside plant serving their households, making migration
to FiOS the only viable alternative).14 The PSC grouped the complaints into the following three categories:
• The first subset, dated between January 6, 2011 and January 15, 2014, include
complaints numbered 1 through 63 (all of these complaints are flagged with the
code “7717” – i.e., concerning the “[p]rovision of telephone service (copper v.
fiber)” and may also be flagged with additional codes (regarding, for example,
among others, repair disputes)).
• The second subset includes complaints between January 20, 2011 and January 6,
2014, numbered 2 through 79, and all have the common flag of “3333” – i.e.
“FiOS dispute/comments” and may also have additional “flags.” They do not
have the 7717 flag. I did not review this set because the complaints seem to
encompass concerns raised by customers who have affirmatively chosen FiOS
and then have complaints specifically about FiOS. In other words, these
complaints do not seem to go to the concerns that I recommend be the focus of a
14 On March 5, 2014, with a cover letter from David J. Collins, Executive Secretary to Molly G. Knoll, Assistant People’s Counsel, the PSC responded to (1) the OPC’s “request for a ‘compilation of all complaints made to the Commission’s Office of External Relations after January 1, 2011 regarding Verizon's copper, fiber or FiOS facilities related to service quality, repair practices, marketing activities and migration of service from copper to fiber’” and (2) the OPC’s request for “a separate compilation of all Verizon complaint files the Commission has determined are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission and forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division.” 17 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission PSC investigation – namely neglect of copper-based services and misleading or
confusing sales and marketing of FiOS.
• The third subset includes 711 complaints that, among other things, concerned
Verizon Md.’s repair of its copper plant, and are, therefore, flagged by the PSC
with the code of “1136.” These complaints provide evidence of the importance of
an in-depth investigation by the PSC into Verizon Md.’s service quality.
Complaints concerning Verizon Md. sales and marketing practices for FiOS telephone
(including customers seeking retention of copper-based service)
From 2011 through mid-January 2014, the PSC received 60 consumer complaints15 flagged by the PSC as “7717 – Copper vs. Fiber.” These complaints relate to consumer harm described as including:
• Verizon Md. representatives are informing consumers that the problems they
are experiencing with their copper lines will not be fixed and they must
purchase FiOS and/or fiber.
• Verizon Md. consumers are being switched to FiOS and/or fiber without the
consumers’ permission.
• Verizon Md. is engaging in aggressive and misleading sales of FiOS and/or
fiber; customers feel pressured and strong-armed into purchasing FiOS
bundles and/or fiber.
15 The 60 complaints break down by year as follows: 2011: 14; 2012: 20; 2012: 25; 2014: 1. 18 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission • Several customers specifically raise network reliability concerns – they prefer
copper to fiber because they understand that copper will be more reliable
during power outages.
• Other themes that complaints raise are that customers have limited funds; they
are content with their DSL; they have alarm systems or medical conditions
and so prefer copper.
• Consumers are uncertain what their rights are – they question whether they are
allowed to go back to copper after subscribing to FIOS, whether they have a
choice about going to FiOS; and whether they can buy a triple play bundle of
fiber-based Internet access and video with the voice part being copper (for
reliability).
• Consumers are wasting their time, being put on hold, not having calls
answered, and not getting their problems resolved.
• Only if and when customers complain does it seem that Verizon Md. fixes the
copper dial tone or allows the customer to go back from FiOS and/or fiber to
copper (see, e.g., nos. 21 and 22).
• Two customers stated that they need copper lines because they have a child or
grandchild on house arrest (nos. 31 and 32).
• Verizon Md. is not providing adequate notice to customers before switching
them to FiOS and/or fiber (see, e.g., no. 42).
• Customers want copper voice as part of their Triple Play (TV, phone, Internet)
FiOS bundles (see, e.g., nos. 44, 46, and 47).
19 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission • There is a stark contrast between Verizon Md.’s seemingly inadequate and
misleading handling of incoming service calls regarding service quality
problems (for existing copper-based service) and its outgoing, sometimes
aggressive marketing of its FiOS products.
• Evidence of consumer recognition and concern that FiOS and/or fiber is not
the same as or is in some ways inferior to copper, particularly in times of
power outages, and particularly for medically or otherwise vulnerable
customers.
Eighteen of the complaints to the PSC that were flagged with “7717,” i.e.,
concerning fiber/copper complaints, concerned copper repair. Based on my review of
the first subset of complaints to the PSC for this three-year time period, I also observed
the following:
• Customer states that s/he experienced a service quality problem and was told
that s/he must switch to FiOS to get the problem fixed (there were 12
complaints in this category;16
• Customer states that s/he was switched to FiOS without her/his permission (14
complaints raised this concern);17
• The customer described poor customer service such as long times on hold;
repeated calls to Verizon Md. without any resolution; failure of Verizon Md.
16 Because the customers’ names are redacted, it is not possible to know the gender of the complainant. 17 These first two categories are distinct – that is, I did not classify any customer as being in both of these two categories. Therefore, in total, 26 distinct customers either were told they must switch to FIOS to get their service to work reliably or they were switched to FiOS without their consent. 20 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission to return calls; rudeness by Verizon Md. employees (ten complaints raised this
issue).
• Three customers reported having no dial tone at all.
• Nine of the customers could be considered vulnerable (eight customers were
diabetic, elderly, had medical conditions, and had household members on
house arrest, and one customer was a heart surgeon who needed network
reliability to be able to help his patients).
These complaints raise serious concerns about Verizon Md.’s repair practices and its sales practices. Two consumers rely on copper plant to fulfill house arrest monitoring and seven consumers rely on copper because they are vulnerable or serve a vulnerable population. Moreover, consumers encountered long wait times and rudeness. A customer who wishes to have her copper line repaired in a timely manner should receive the same level of attention and promptness by Verizon Md.’s customer representatives as do those who seek to buy $100 bundles of FiOS packages.
The consumers’ complaints are compelling in how they convey anger, frustration, concern for the public safety of household members, and uncertainty about whether
Verizon Md. is allowed to force them to subscribe to fiber-based services. Attachment C-
3 includes verbatim excerpts from consumer complaints that I reviewed from this time period, which illustrate the various types of concerns that are causing consumers to take the time to contact the PSC about Verizon Md.’s practices.
Complaints relating to apparent neglect of copper network/failure to repair copper dial tone lines in a timely manner
21 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission In addition to complaints about Verizon Md.’s practices with respect to migration
of customers to FiOS and/or fiber, there is also evidence that the PSC should investigate
further regarding Verizon Md.’s neglect of its copper network and failure to repair copper
dial tone lines in a timely manner. Between 2011 and early 2014, the PSC received 717
complaints flagged as “1136,” i.e., pertaining to inadequate repair of residential copper
dial tone lines (and not also flagged as 7717).18 I reviewed 45 of these complaints in
detail, specifically the most recently filed of the 717 total complaints in this category).
Of this 45-complaint subset, nine complaints were also designated as “1138” complaints,
which the PSC defines as including customer service that is “in access (sic); rude; not
helpful; long wait times; disconnected, etc.).”
Conclusion
The many detailed complaints underscore the importance of investigating the root
cause of the problems that consumers are experiencing. Consumer complaints have
provided compelling evidence of the possibility that Verizon Md. is failing to maintain its
copper network adequately throughout the state (in non-FiOS parts of the state as well as
in FiOS-served areas), and that it may be inappropriately confusing customers about their
options for migrating to FiOS and/or fiber.
18 The breakdown by year is as follows: 2011: 443; 2012: 248; 2013: 138; 2014: 13. Although the numbers of complaints declined during this time period, customers may have given up on seeking relief and also during this time period the number of customers served by copper dial tone lines likely declined. 22 Appendix B: Summary of Review of Consumer Complaints to the Public Service Commission APPENDIX C-1
ILLUSTRATIVE EXCERPTS FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE PSC: OCTOBER 2, 2015 THROUGH AUGUST 8, 2016
OVERVIEW
Appendix C-1 to my affidavit includes reproductions of selected consumer complaints from the time period spanning October 2, 2015 through August 8, 2016 that illustrate various types of problems arising from Verizon’s apparent failure to maintain its copper network. I maintained the chronological organization of the complaints, and include the complaint numbers assigned by the PSC. The bold headings preceding the individual complaints are my characterizations of the complaints.
EXCERPTS FROM CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
Customer’s repair appointment rescheduled several times and then customer was told s/he must migrate to fiber and Verizon would not fix the dial tone line:
1 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016 No. 67
No dial tone; several repair appointment not kept No. 72:
Defective cable goes unrepaired:
2 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Example of mismanaged migration from copper to fiber:
Long delay in repair:
3 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Example of harm to small business: credit likely does not begin to cover the cost to the small business:
4 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016 5 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Forced migration to FiOS:
Downed telephone line:
Voice Link offered as “repair solution”:
6 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
It is likely that if the customer had not complained to the PSC, the customer would have believed that s/he had to migrate to FiOS:
7 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Problems on the Eastern Shore:
Evidence of defective cable:
8 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Copper-to-fiber migration issues:
Non-functioning dial tone jeopardizes public safety:
9 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Failure to maintain lines:
Medical condition, elderly customer; long time without service:
10 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Verizon informs customer s/he must change to FiOS (not a repair issue):
Customer in area that may be targeted for copper retirement with no or slow repair of dial tone line:
11 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Misleading practice regarding FiOS:
12 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Apparent failure to maintain network adequately leads to dial tone problems when it rains:
13 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Aggressive marketing of FiOS:
Temporary fixes to outside plant:
Verizon presents FiOS as the solution to chronic repair problem:
14 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Copper customer seemingly neglected:
Calls for copper repair seemingly being routed to FiOS sales:
Customer told service will be disconnected if s/he does not subscribe to FiOS:
15 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Customer migrated to FiOS without customer’s knowledge of migration:
16 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
Customer seeks clarification on how the copper retirement process works:
17 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016
18 Appendix C-1: Illustrative Customer Complaints: October 2015 and August 2016 APPENDIX C-2 ILLUSTRATIVE EXCERPTS FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE PSC: JANUARY 1, 2014 TO OCTOBER 19, 2015
OVERVIEW Appendix C-2 to my affidavit includes reproductions of selected consumer complaints submitted to the PSC between January 1, 2014 and October 19, 2015. I chose the subset to illustrate the types of problems that consumers are encountering as well as their level of frustration. The PSC flagged all of these complaints as “1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc).” 1 I italicized parts of the complaints for emphasis.
EXCERPTS FROM SELECTED CONSUMER COMPLAINTS No. 3
Complaint#: 1015218494 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Date Closed:
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1138 - Cust. Sve (inaccess; rude; not helpful, long wait times, disconnected, etc.)
Basis of Complaint:
My residential copper line telephone service is chronically unuseable due to excessive crackle and hum. This problem has been going on for six years. Verizon is aware of the problem and has stated at various times over the years that a new trunk line needs to be installed for service in my area, or that a new buried line needs to be installed from the overhead service line to my homes demarcation box. Most recently, they made arrangements to replace the buried line to my home. Miss Utility marked the pathway on October 5th and Verizon, apparently not knowing what their left and right hands are doing, cannot tell me why, 10 days later, the work has not been completed or when it will be done. Meanwhile, the Miss Utility markings are fading and they continue to charge me $120 each month for a service I'm unable to use.
I feel that Verizon is dragging their feet because they do not want to invest any more money in maintaining their less profitable copper line telephone service.
6
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
1015218364 10/09/2015 10/15/2015
1 The complaints are all in “File No. 1” provided to the OPC in response to the PIA. 1 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 to October 19, 2015 1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 7717 - Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber) Basis of Complaint: the copper phone line gets noise or goes out. Verizon keeps pushing Fios and said the last time they were not going to keep fixing these old copper lines. they want everyone on Fios. the problem is alway at the box up on the main road. they need to fix the box to keep moister and rodents out so this doesnt happen. they try to force you into Fios and it takes a few days to get someone out to fix. this in uncalled for. i cant remeber the date the last time it was a couple months ago.
UAS's Final Comments: ltr #6; acct noted not to migrate to FiOS; last repair 4/14
No. 7
Complaint#: 1015218298 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Date Closed:
Basis of Complaint: My landline (410-745-9243) is out of service more than it works. It is a know problem. Verizon workers have told me that it is a defective concentrator at the corner of Macks Lane and Rt 33. Verizon won't replace it because it only supports 65 subscribers and it would cost $100K to replace. Meanwhile I am out of service on a regular basis. This line supports my security system. My concern is that there will be a fire that goes unreported because service is out. It would be a tragedy if my house burns down because Verizon does not provide reliable service. UAS's Final Comments: 1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1148 - Quality
No. 17
Complaint#: 815217174 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Date Closed: 09/02/2015
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1148 - Quality of Service Dispute (not customer service)
Basis of Complaint:
We have had ongoing problems with static on the line and the phone going completely dead going back years now. I call Verizon, they send out a tech who makes a temporary fix, and then the problem comes back a week later. This has been going on for years. They have been out here MANY times. The main line that comes down the alley behind the house is damaged and in need of repair - several different techs have told me this - but Verizon never actually repairs the problem to the main line. The techs just fiddle with my connection to the main line until it works well enough for them to leave and report back that our phone is working. At a minimum, I want the main line REPAIRED once and for all. I would also like some sort of a credit to my account for the months and months of lost or severely degraded phone service. Thank you!!! 2 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 UAS's Final Comments: ltr #6 w/COMAR & tariff; repaired wet buried splice; confirmed svc working
33
Complaint#: 615214680 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Date Closed:
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1148 - Quality of Service Dispute (not customer service)
Basis of Complaint:
My landline service with Verizon has been intermittent due to static in the line for almost 1 year. I've tried since at least November 2014 to get this problem straightened out, but it keeps recurring and apparently Verizon's techs are unable to repair the problem. I've had this problem in the distant past, and it's takes an enormous amount of time out of my schedule for Verizon's techs to accurately diagnose the problem and correct it. This issue with static in the line has been recently going on at least since July 2014. However, due to the weighty time constraints going through Verizon's scheduling systems causes, I didn't start reporting the problem until November 2014. Verizon's own records show that I continued calling again in March 2015; and this problem is still occurring now. After heavy rains, my dial tone has static and I can make or hear calls. This reoccurred last night. I've spoken with numerous people at Verizon, to no avail. I want reimbursement on service charges.
UAS's Final Comments:
Mld Ltr 58. Verizon reported tech dispatched and repaired external wiring. Reported customer confirmed service is now working.
43
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
415212682 04/21/2015 04/30/2015
7717 - Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber) 1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc.
Basis of Complaint:
03/24/15 no dial tone on both of 2 home phone lines. Was given the run around and false promises +9 ticket order #s which were BOGUS(as described by an on-site verizon tech) over last 28days. Then one rep revealed that both lines had been deliberately moved OFF COPPER to fiber digital network. THIS 3 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 was done WITHOUT WRITTEN or recorded VERBAL PERMISSION FROM ME or my wife. Also as of 3/24although we have FIOS TV the FIOS box on the side of our home had no wires to NIB.We then made repeated calls and have been kept on hold for several hours at a time as well as passed around from phone rep to phone rep in an effort to discourage. Told them that we are disabled and do not want to be taken off copper, especially not without our permission. All we have gotten is lies, passive aggressiveness + loud yelling by 2 phone reps & one on-site FIOS tech (John L. Tech code GX-0)who all plainly stated that verizon has no intention of switching us back to copper.28 days later still no dial tone/resolut
UAS's Final Comments: svc moved back to copper; credit issued; mod ltr #89
44
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
415212681 04/21/2015 04/27/2015
7717 - Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber) 1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. Basis of Complaint:
I renewed my contract with Verizon on 4/8/15 (ph/TV/net) and affirmed 5 times I would be kept on copper wire for my landline. When I came home, my phone was dead. I was told I had been switched to Fios and I demanded to be put back on copper since I refused Fios for my phone. On 4/12/15 I complained again that my phone was still dead and demanded to be put back on copper. I was told it would be fixed by 4/14/15. When my phone was STILL dead on 4/17/15, I complained again and demanded to be put back on copper. They said they would send out a technician. On 4/19/15, the tech said he only had an order to fulfill the Fios phone, NOT to put me back on copper. There has been NO physical change to my phone (I refused temp Fios phone wiring) so all they have to do is switch me back to copper. I have tried to escalate this, to no avail. Please call them and demand I be put back on copper immediately with NO charges or penalties and back credit for dead phone! THANK YOU!
UAS's Final Comments: ltr #58 w/COMAR & tariff; order was started when dispute recd to switch back to copper; line working; credit issued
50
50
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
315211202 03/17/2015 04/21/2015 4 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1148 - Quality of Service Dispute (not customer service)
Basis of Complaint:
I operate a catering business. Verizon has been unable to provide on-going satisfactory land line service to my business. There is continually a loud buzzing in the background which prevents communication.
Verizon has sent 20+ service technicians. Each and every technician has related that the copper wire servicing our property is very old and needs to be replaced. Each and every technician has indicated that Verizon absolutely will not invest $.10 in land based service and that we are just "out of luck".
Since Verizon operates as a monopoly at our service address, it seems that a state sponsored monopoly should be required by the State of Maryland to provided basic dial tone service. Nothing fancy, just basic dial tone.
I would appreciate you assistance in encouraging Verizon to provide the service required. Thank you,
Charles C. Saxon Office Catering
UAS's Final Comments: ltr #6; repaired/cleared line; LM will work w/cust to keep line working & migrate to FiOS; ltr #6
57
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
115208857 01/14/2015 02/24/2015
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1147 - MEDICAL CONDITION AT PROPERTY
Basis of Complaint:
Verizon Phone Co of MD made AT LEAST 5 trips to my house with Lineman and Supervisor to try to fix phone line(line broke down whenever Weather got moist or rain). They traced problems 1-3 miles up Harford Rd from residence. They tried to fix but could not. Supervisor explained that ALL HARD LINES in GlenArm were installed 50 years ago and now are corroding to the point where they(Verizon) can't fix them. My only choice is to have a WIRELESS PHONE BASE INSTALLED at no cost. They came out next day CUT MY PHONE LINE and installed their wireless box.
I LOST MY FUNCTION FOR *69, AUTO REDIAL,VOICE LEVEL GOES UP AND DOWN TO UNINTELLIGIBLE.
The Lineman repair person PLUS Supervisor never mentioned I would loose these functions . As an 5 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 AGENT for Verizon they should have; especially since I asked then many questions regarding reliability, have a brand new Panasonic Phone system interaction etc."All will be OK" they said. THIS PHONE IS FOR MEDICAL USE=IMPORTANT !!This should Grandfather inTx
UAS's Final Comments: ltr 6:Company will contact customer directly, PSC don’t regulate Voicelink service.
59
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
1214208414 12/30/2014 01/06/2015
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc.
Basis of Complaint:
Humming sound on mom's phone 88 yr. Old mom w life threatening conditions410 357 0324 Alma Honkofsky, 2 landlines not working to include 410 357 0324 called verizon 1/2 hr. ago , tech. Coming Sat. constant behavior of having to call over and over for the same problems, landlines no dial tone, humming, called two weeks ago, sooo frustrated with service. Thanks for your prompt response.
UAS's Final Comments:
61
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
1214208196 12/22/2014 04/20/2015
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc.
Basis of Complaint:
Customer complained that he cannot keep a dial tone on his phone after numerous repairs and complaints.
New complaint sent.
UAS's Final Comments: ltr 5: Verizon dispatch a tech on 1/5/15 who placed permanent line and re-routed the line to bypass the defective section of cable and restored service.
67 6 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
1214207454 12/05/2014 12/11/2014
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 1138 - Cust. Sve (inaccess; rude; not helpful, long wait times, disconnected, etc.)
Basis of Complaint:
The phone has been out of service since Wednesday Nov. 26. I entered a repair request online, Saturday 11/29 after the holiday. After being transferred from "Fios" to "Copper" support, the technician indicated Verizon would come Monday 12/1 between 8 & 5.
Subsequently, automated messages were left on the work phone that Verizon would come Wed. 12/3, and later other messages and email indicating arrival 12/5 between 8 & 11, and still later other messages indicating arrival 12/5 between 11:45 & 12:45. When no one had arrived or called by 12:45, I called Verizon. The automated message said repair will come SATURDAY 12/6 between 8 & noon. After a long wait and transfer to a supervisor, I was told sorry, there was no way they can be out before Saturday noon, but there was still a small chance they'd come today. THERE IS A VERIZON TRUCK IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE NOW. But, it's here to install the new neighbor's Fios, not my phone repair. APPALLING SERVICE! I HATE VERIZON!!!
UAS's Final Comments: ltr #58 w/COMAR & tariff; repaired defective aerial cable; did not speak w/cust; sent ltr
Report Name: SummaryRpt
No. 69
ReportStatus 10/19/2015 Page 32 of 68
Complaint#: 1114206632 Date Filed: 11/17/2014 Date Closed: 03/23/2015
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc.
Basis of Complaint:
Customer complains of several repair tickets being closed without being fixed, wants Verizon to fix copper lines and not push Fios.
New complaint pdf sent.
UAS's Final Comments:
7 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 ltr 6:Company sent tech on 11/21/14 to service issue, advised her further work to be done on 12/3/14 for the remaining cable issue. Ms was given tech number to call if she need assistance.
Excerpt from No. 74: consumer asks: “shouldn't the phones operate in the rain?? “
75
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
1014205326 10/21/2014 12/01/2014
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc.
Basis of Complaint:
Customer and wife are in their 80's. Have not had working landline for 5 weeks. Verizon tech came out several times but will not work on the line because of electrical voltage. Customer needs the landline fixed. Said neighbor 2 houses down the same side of his street going south also has the same phone issue. Verizon will not fix their phones. Complaint is being filed with Verizon and PE.
UAS's Final Comments:
Per the local manager, the customer is in service and Verizon is continuing to work to correct bonding issues.
83
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
914203160 09/04/2014 12/04/2014
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 7717 - Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber)
Basis of Complaint:
Cust complains that when it rains she experiences outtages. Verizon techs have suggested Fios but does not want because it is to expensive & not regulated. Cust claims that tech took her cable line to repair a neighbors service and her service went out.
UAS's Final Comments:
Verizon addressed complaint and restored her to copper and issued credit.
8 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 88
Complaint#: Date Filed: Date Closed:
814202718 08/21/2014 12/22/2014
1136 - Repair Dispute (NDT;SvcNotWorking;Utility Poles,Etc. 7717 - Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber)
Basis of Complaint:
On 8/18/14 I experienced complete loss of my copper-wired Verizon phone service. When I reported no dial tone, a service visit was scheduled for 8/20/14. On that date the Verizon tech informed me that my phone line had been switched to FIOS and that my only option in order to restore phone service was for him to hook up the FIOS service to my phones. Verizon customer service informs me that even though I have home security system that requires a copper wire line, Verizon refuses to restore my copper wire phone service. I never authorized any change to my copper wire phone service.
UAS's Final Comments:
On August 27, 2014 an order was issued to change the telephone line from FDV to copper service; which completed successfully on August 28, 2014.
9 Appendix C-2: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 1, 2014 – October 19, 2015 APPENDIX C-3 ILLUSTRATIVE EXCERPTS FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE PSC: JANUARY 6, 2011 TO JANUARY 15, 2014
OVERVIEW Appendix C-3 to my affidavit includes reproductions of selected consumer complaints from the time period spanning January 6, 2011 through January 15, 2014 that illustrate various types of problems arising from Verizon’s apparent failure to maintain its copper network and Verizon’s seemingly confusing or misleading FiOS sales practices. I maintained the chronological organization of the complaints, and include the complaint numbers assigned by the PSC. The italicized comments in parentheses are my observations. EXCERPTS FROM CONSUMER COMPLAINTS The following complaints are copied verbatim from the PSC’s complaint intake forms: Complaint # 3 1213191019 Set 1 states (in part): (NDT / No long maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) Two weeks ago we began having problems with our home phone and internet service (DSL) from Verizon. Instead of a dial tone there was static when we tried to make a call, incoming calls would not go through or go to voice mail, and the internet functioned only occasionally and then with very limited capacity. When I called Verizon to see about getting the problem resolved, they told me that since my service was on copper lines they would not send a repair person to fix the problem because they no longer maintain copper lines. They said that if I wanted phone and internet service my only option was to switch to FiOS. The new FIOS service is costing me more than the old service. Complaint # 5 1013188549 Set 1 states (in part): (NDT / No long maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) No dial tone on overhead copper wire line . . . rejected 3x their offer of switch to FIOS. …. Verizon repair supervisor said they would send copper wire tech to fix on Oct 14. …a FIOS tech showed up with instructions to switch customer to FIOS. He could not deal with copper wire. Complaint # 11 613184530 Set 1 states (in part): (Hum or Static on line) Called Verizon to report hum on line. Verizon switched them to Fios w/out explaining the battery back up or giving them choice. The Fios is not compatible with their alarm system. Wants service back to copper and copper fixed so no hum. Complaint #13 613183707 Set 1 states: (Frequent power outages / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) Verizon is forcing them to change to fiber and they do not want to. … Customer said they are against fiber because they experience a lot of power outages and need a reliable landline. Also they have DSL service that they want to keep. Complaint #3 1213191019 Set 1 states (in part): (No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) …When I called Verizon to see about getting the problem resolved, they told me that since my service was on copper lines they would not send a repair person to fix the problem because they no longer
1 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 maintain copper lines. They said that if I wanted phone and internet service my only option was to switch to FIOS. Complaint #24 213178877 Set 1 states: (No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) Yesterday I called verizon communications to start a landline service to my new address (beginning March 1). I want an old fashioned land line service in my home. The house was built in 1959 and it already has the original copper wires. Verizon said absolutely not. Complaint #25 21317850 Set 1 states: (No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) Verizon changed to Fios in my community. I have copper ran (sic) to my house for DSL so I called Verizon on 2-18 and 2-19 requesting that service get hooked up internet and phone at my home. I was told by the company that they no longer offer that type of service I would have to switch to Fios which cost a lot more and they ONLY offer one telephone plan which is very costly. Complaint #27 113177130 Set 1 states: (Power outages / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) After repeatedly asking Verizon to discontinue my FIOS service and reconnect my copper/landline, and Verizon refusing to do so—I have filed this complaint to have my copper service reinstated at the above- captioned property address. …I also work from home and must have reliable phone service even during times of power outages, therefore, I need to have the copper line reconnected. At the time of the Fios installation, I requested that the technician leave in place the copper line from the street to my house. This was done. The copper line to my house is still in place and can be reconnected to the drop. My neighbors have copper lines and so I know that copper lines are still available in my area. Complaint #30 812170921Set 1 states: (Safety concerns / Power outages / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) … but Verizon is telling me that if I want to upgrade the speed of my internet (FiOS) connection to their new minimum 15/2 tier, I need to upgrade my landline to their digital voice service as well. … I requested Verizon switch me back to the copper service because the battery backup that they provided lacked the capacity to survive the prolonged power outages we experienced a few years ago. I want to keep the copper because – at least to me – this is a matter of personal/family safety. Complaint #31 812170921 Set 1 states: (Poor customer service / Vulnerable / Safety) i(sic) have been trying to get verizon to convert my services to copper line. i (sic) have 11 different service order # have emailed and called everyday for service. my (sic) gd is on house arrest and need a working phone so that she can remain in the home for mental health treatment and medications. she (sic) will be come (sic) suicidal without her meds. i (sic) have been very patient with verizon as well as house arrest but it is a crisis now. i (sic) need help with verizon providing service. they (sic) have not showed up when scheduled on 5 occasions. no (sic) call or text messages. please (sic) help Complaint #33 712169852 Set 1 states: (Power outages / Static / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS)
2 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 Verizon is apparently refusing to maintain my copper wire phone service, while accepting money from me every month for the service. Instead, they are effectively pressuring me to switch to Fios phone service, although I consider it unreliable with the regular Pepco power outages that extend past the 12 hr duration of the Fios phone battery pack. Every time it rains, there is horrible crackling on my copper phone line. I complained to Verizon and got this response: “It is now too expensive to maintain two types of service side by side copper line next to a Fios line. It will be in your interest to switch now and not be bother (sic) with the static when it rains….Please reconsider your demand for copper service as it will soon be removed.” Complaint #43 312149853 Set 1 states: (Power outages / Safety concerns / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) I have been told I must immediately change from my hard-wired copper line to phone to digital fiber optic phone service. If I do not, I will have to pay a charge for the convertion (sic) when the copper wire network is abandoned in 2014. Having received at least three of these calls, I consider it harassment. I want to keep my current service because of frequent extended power outages. The fiber optic system has no power and only an eight hour battery back up system. This would leave my family without phone service in an emergency. Complaint #46 212149366 Set 1 states: (Poor customer service / Switched to FiOS without permission) In January 2011 I signed up for Verizon Fios Triple Play: Internet, TV and Copper Wired Phone. After 5 months of being bounced around from reps to reps, I finally got the Digital Voice switched to the copper wired phone I have signed for. In July I made a slight change in my TV lineup and I found out in August that I have Digital Voice again. When confronted, Verizon tried to say that I asked for the change and when I refuted that assertion, the Rep confessed that whenever changes are made to an account, copper wired phone gets automatically switched to DV because starting in July, Verizon stopped offering Triple Play that includes Copper Wired Phone Line. …It took dozens of calls from August to October 27 to get the service back on 10/31 and the price adjust meant I was promised never materialized. Im (sic) still fighting because the price has almost doubled. Verizon needs to make things right and I am tired of calling and treated (sic) like I am being man handled. Compliant #47 112148818 Set 1 states: (Switched to FiOS without permission) …Much of what I was told turned out not to be true as the new packaged changed all aspects of my triple play package. My primary concern in writing you is that Verizon attempted to change my phone service to digital voice without disclosing that information when I agreed to the new plan. I have not allowed them to change my phone to digital voice, but they are now trying to use a more costly rate structure to provide me regulated phone service. I contacted them again on 1/18/12 and 1/25/12 to confirm their position. They have also refused to revert back to my grandfathered package. Complaint #54 1111146618 Set 1 states in part: (No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS)
3 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 …and currently have high speed internet (copper) We are perfectly happy with this cheaper service. Now moving one mile away, we are told we must become fios users and have no other option (sic). Verizon is refusing to install copper and will cut our copper line upon installment of Fios. Complaint #60 711140813 Set 1 states: (Vulnerable / Switched to FiOS without permission) Customer is visually impaired. He never wanted FiOS because he didn’t like the reliability concerns with the phone when he loses electricity but finally Verizon agreed to keep his phone on copper and he ordered FiOS internet only. Day before Verizon was to be installed (sic) the FiOS they cut his copper line. They strung temporary service after he complained. He asked when they were going to bury it. Verizon then removed the copper and connected him to FiOS for phone without his permission. He wants the copper phone restored. Complaint #62 211134714 Set 1 states: (Poor customer service / Switched to FiOS without permission) Despite five different requests, including a written order, Verizon ported my phone service to Fiso when I switched by (sic) DLS Internet service to Fios Internet. I made it very clear at the beginning that I did not want Fios Digital Voice, and signed a written order for the Freedom Essentials package, which includes the traditional copper wire line. I even called the next day to confirm that the order would not affect my phone service. When Verizon called to confirm the order, I confirmed that it only involved Internet, not phone service. The technician was told not to change the phone service and he said he didn’t. But I was switched anyway. I talked to six people at Verizon, including one who hung up on me when I asked for a date that the technician would return to restore the service, and another who denied that the service had been switched. I am filing this complaint 72 hours after a promised return call with a resolution to the problem failed to come. Complaint #2 214193517 Set 3 states in part: (Vulnerable / No service) …Very Ill (sic). Telephone out of order over 48 hours. Verizon playing games can’t get beyond identifying people….I am on the Edge for a breakdown of some sort and I don’t want to be unable to call an ambulance…” Complaint #4 214193322 Set 3 states in part: (complaint filed on 2/18/2014) (No service / Poor customer service) We lost phone service (2 lines) about 3:30 a.m. on 2/14 when a new 2 year agreement began. We bundle our services and retain wire copper service which Verizon is making impossible to maintain…Service was restored today, but our lines are now crossed. Our home alarm remains disconnected. We were told today that a technician will need to come out (although the problem began remotely (and was not available before 2/20. Complaint #8 214192874 Set 3 states: (Vulnerable / Safety / Poor customer service) Repair dispute, husband has brain injury, so frustrated has been on the phone so long phone lost charge, no show last Tues.when she didn’t have a dial tone, tech. Came Thurs. and did temporary fix to Fios even though her lines are copper, she does have service temporarily, Fios will give her service for 8 hrs. if the pwr. Goes out but with copper, no time limit being that she has a wall phone that doesn’t req. electricity, tech. gave her a card but cannot be reached and voicemail full. SOOO Frustrated, may have to call 911 for brain injured husband,
4 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 Complaint # 9 114192335 Set 3 states: (Poor customer service / Poor quality of phone service) Customer complained about frequent repairs (sic) problems and poor quality of phone service in the Neck District. Says Verizon refuses to upgrade the main box at the intersections of Hudson Road and Cassons Neck and the one located at the intersection of Hills Point Road and Ragged Point Road because not enough customers in this area justify the expense for the repairs needed. Complaint #16 1213190742 (date filed 12/4/2013) Set 3 states: (Poor quality of phone service / Poor customer service) I have not had telephone service 410 484 1460 since 11/27/13 When ever (sic) I call Verizon service repair I get different stories what the problem is, and a repairman will come down. On Sunday, I waited for a repairman who never appeared, when I called Verizon, I was told the problem as on their end and it would be fixed Monday morning. Today Wednesday the proble (sic) still has not been resolved-Help Complaint #17 121390568 (date filed 12/2/2013) Set 3 states: (Poor quality of phone service / Poor customer service) I lost dialtone 2 A.M. November 27. My DLS works on and off but not for longer than eight minutes at a time and is off longer on the cycle. I was dropped from chat be (sic) Verizon DSL support when I requested a report to Verizon od no Dialtone (sic). I have crackly static on all sets even only one in NID (sic). Outside calling the house I get a busy with or without a set plugged into the NID. This is usually indicative of a ground.. I called repair and was hung up on when I refused FIOS conversion. I fornd (sic) Verizon’s report website and was told by their GUI that my problem is CPE oriented and they will dispatch a technician on DEC 2, 2013. Complaint #19 1113190286 Set 3 states: (Vulnerable / NDT / Poor customer service) They were going to change our line from a analog (sic) to a digital. Said all they “needed to do is throw a switch.” They messed up the order and now we have no phone service. I have called them about 5 times since 8 AM today it is now 1:20 PM and they have not gotten back to me to set up having a tec. come to the house to restore service. My son who is handicapped is at home and not sure he can manage the use of a cell phone in an emergency. Complaint #20 1113190244 states in part: (Poor customer service / Frequent power outages / Safety concerns) ... but they would be out to do that 3 days after the install. Three months later, we have service outages almost daily, and have opened multiple tickets for Verizon to bury the cable line. We have also called Verizon at least three dozen times… As of right now, there is a live wire running from our house down the street…No one at Verizon is willing to help us, and the people who were supposed to perform the work do not return our calls. Complaint #22 1113189521 Set 3 states in part: (Vulnerable / NDT) No phone service since last Wed…Old by himself right now (wife went to visit daughter, heart condition…) Complaint #23 1013188540 (date filed 10/15/2013 – date closed 10/23/2013) Set 3 states in part: (Vulnerable / NDT)
5 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 …He is 89, will be 90 next month. Called to report no dial tone. Was told earliest can fix is 10/17 which is not acceptable. (Verizon should refer customer to have Priority Reconnect Form completed due to his age). Complaint #26 913187962 Set 3 states: (NDT / Poor customer service) Customer complains of telephones having no dial tone. Feels Verizon has no accountability for quality of service. Complaint #31 913187266 (date filed 9/12/2013) states: (NDT / Poor customer service / Frequent power outages) NO LANDLINE PHONE SERVICE NOW, SO FRUSTRATING, SPENT COUNTLESS HRS. TRYING TO RESOLVE, 2nd line (REDACTED) W NO SERVICE, On Aug 29, agreed to FIOS for internet service only, has two copper LAND lines which they are keeping because of power outages in the past and they need land line phones, last Fri. tech installed FIOS internet, landline phone worked fine until Mon. then they could make outgoing but couldn’t receive incoming, called Verizon and was told there was an open work order? (sic) bad reception on cell phone at home, feel desparate (sic) Mr. Called from Ca to try to get this resolved, since Wed. no incoming and cannot make outbound calls. Tech was sent yesterday but nanny was there and this wasn’t what was arranged, Mr. Will be flying home tomorrow morning on redline (sic) and a tech. hopefully will be coming to remedy this phone repair. Mr. Said they have spoken with reps in India, Philippines, no one takes ownership, no accountability. PLEASE HELP PROMPTLY. THANKS SO MUCH. Complaint #32 913187100 Set 3 states: (Vulnerable / NDT / Poor customer service) no dial tone, elderly mother had a sever (sic) stroke, medical already on file, called Wed. to report problem, was told someone would be out to repair bet. 7:00-12:30 and no one needed to be home since and (sic) outside issue, left home to take her sister to the doctor, ewas (sic) told that tech. Had been but no one was home, called again this am and was told there weren’t any notes in the system about a tech. coming out, after asking for a supervisor and being on her daughters cell, was told a tech. Would be out today by 5:00 and she would call back at 12:30 to make sure everything was ok, doesn’t have confidence in the repair being addressed today. Also mentioned numberous (sic) techs. Coming out about the internet and it still doesn’t work. Complaint #40 813186413 Set 3 states in part: (Attempting to switch to FiOS without permission) …Verizon twice refused my verbal request to stop installation and has twice dug up my yard… Complaint #41 813186339 Set 3 states: (NDT / Poor customer service / No longer maintain copper lines so must switch to FiOS) My Land-line Telephone line is completely dead, no dial tone or static. I filed a complaint about 2 years ago regarding NOT wanting my phone on FIOS Ever since I have had what appears to be constant harassment and disruptive service from Verizon. The harassment boarders (sic) on constant phone calls to sway me to FIOS. so (sic) much that I have blocked that particular number. Complaint # 43 813186093 Set 3 states: (Poor customer service / Poor quality of phone service) Called Verizon regarding static on several of our 301-843 lines. The responded and just after he started working on our lines 3-4 lines failed. He was not helpful and wanted to leave. According to our inhouse 6 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014 telephone tech the problems were at Verizon’s end and the tech had placed some of the lines on a dead line. He was of no help and the Verizon call center kept us on hold for about two hours when we tried to explain that this was a doctor’s office with med emergency incoming calls. During the hold with the call center, they hung up on us three times. Now we still have one of our four lines (REDACTED) still not working, with no sign of repair and we have spent several hundred dollars with our inside telephone consultant fixing Verizon’s mess. Complaint #45 813185900 Set 3 states: (NDT / Poor customer service) Phone line has been out of service. Verizon repair does not arrive at the appointed times, and then simply cancels appointments and places us at the end of the line.
7 Appendix C-3: Illustrative Customer Complaints: January 6, 2011 to January 15, 2014
APPENDIX D
REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OTHER THAN TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OVERVIEW In Appendix D, I summarize my review of the consumer complaints, which, other than
one complaint, were submitted to government agencies other than the Public Service
Commission (“PSC” or “Commission”).1 The issues that consumers raise are consistent
with those that they raise in the hundreds of complaints filed with the PSC.
DISCUSSION OF COMPLAINTS
Howard County Cable Administration
The Howard County Cable Administration provided OPC with a summary of six
complaints it categorized as relating to copper/fiber issues and/or FiOS complaints and
that the agency received between June 29, 2007 and April 10, 2014. An illustrative
complaint (dated April 10, 2014) follows:
Complaint - "Could you help us with a problem we are experiencing with Verizon? In the last few months we have been without phone and internet approximately 15-20 times. We have been told by Verizon that the copper wire on Belmont Woods Road is very old and degraded and they are having trouble finding "pairs" to even continue to provide us with dial tone service. There is fiber (FIOS) on the closest cross street (Elibank) but they have not committed to this solution for us. In addition to losing our dial tone frequently, currently our DSL is strung above ground through the woods in an attempt to keep any level of internet connection. I know many neighbors are having the similar problems. Without a cable provider on our street we are at the mercy of Verizon to have basic communication services. Would you be willing to contact Verizon and inquire about the option of making a long term repair to the services on Belmont Woods Road?"
Another illustrative complaint, dated March 7, 2014 follows:
1 In Appendices B and C-1 through C-3, I review and describe the hundreds of complaints submitted by consumers to the Public Service Commission in the approximate five and a half years spanning early January 2011 to early August 2016.
1 Appendix D
Complaint - "My 40-year old, deteriorated phone lines are barely functional and for the last several years, Verizon has had to send repair trucks to my farm whenever we have severe rain or heavy snow. This year the phone has been out for almost two weeks. The Verizon technician reports that fiber optical wire is scheduled for my area however, the County has stopped delivery of this much needed improvement. My house is one mile off of Jennings Chapel Road and connectivity, even by satellite dish is non-existent in bad weather."
Howard County Department of Citizen Services, Office of Consumer Affairs (“OCA”)
The Howard County OCA forwarded the following complaint to the OPC, which
provides yet another example of a consumer’s experience with poor service quality:2
I am handicapped 75 yo living alone, semi housebound and not tech savy (sic). Verizon has no phone access for 2 weeks afer calling w an order. have called 5 different days to address this they tell me each time its (sic) corrected but still not dial tone, I have to leave the house to use someone elses (sic) phone each time. total frustration and dangerous for me as I have emphasema (sic) and cant (sic) be two contact who do I call to report this.
The same customer wrote later:
telephone now working they just called said I will be forced to change the phone to digital latr (sic) but for now they have revived the system I had all along. 2 weeks dead was rediculous (sic) and dangerous for me. but they did respond to you so I cant (sic) thank you enough.
Complaints to Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection
Recent complaints:
OPC received copies of two different consumer complaints in 2016 relating to copper-to- fiber migration received by the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection
2 Complaint #2932, dated January 19, 2012.
2 Appendix D
(“OCP”) -- a 21-page filed received August 15, 2016 by the OPC and 3-page file entitled
“OCP Case 46848.”
The first Montgomery County OCP file from 2016 details correspondence concerning
Case 46432JAR regarding a 2016 complaint by a customer who “never agreed to switch from copper to fiber” (emphasis in the original) and who was purportedly told that her line would be disconnected if she did not buy a package. Among other things, in response, Verizon apologized for the “completely unacceptable actions” of the employee, and clarified that customers are not forced to migrate to fiber, and if they do migrate to the “newer, more reliable and resilient technology of fiber-optic facilities,” they are not required to purchase any other services. Although Verizon explains that it is improving its training of customer service representatives, the case file raises the possibility that representatives’ compensation is linked to their sales of bundles, which could lead to incentives for them to “upsell” services.
The second Montgomery County OCP file from 2016 concerns Case 46848 in which a customer, over aged 65, complained in May 2016 that an employee of Lambert Splicing
(a Verizon contractor or subsidiary) appeared at his residence with a work order to lay cable in preparation for a FiOS installation. When contacted, the Lambert Splicing
Project Manager confirmed that Verizon had made such a cable installation order but that because the customer did not want it, Lambert would not proceed. The consumer raised concerns about Verizon’s “aggressive and questionable” marketing practices.
3 Appendix D
Complaints between October 28, 2013 and June 15, 2016
I am including a table, based on Montgomery County OCP’s “Pushing FiOS” Excel file,
provided to the OPC, as Appendix E. The information reproduces the Excel file
(omitting the customers’ names and addresses), which includes information about 31 complaints regarding Verizon’s seemingly overly aggressive and misleading sales of its
FiOS services, with the FiOS frequently being offered in lieu of fixing copper dial tone line services. The Montgomery OCP also provided the OPC with files corresponding to each of the 31 complaints. These many complaints may indicate widespread problems with the way in which Verizon conducts its repairs and sales.
I also reviewed complaints between 2011 and 2013, many of which are tangential to the concerns I raise in my affidavit.3 A summary of the complaints that bear on the issues
that I address in my affidavit follows:
Case #41071: This case was open February 2, 2012 and closed February 8, 2012. A woman in an unknown town complained during January-February 2012 that Verizon contacted her to inform that the wires on the outside of her home were old, Verizon wanted to replace them, and someone needed to be home. That day she got a call from a technician who said she was going to come by to install FiOS. The customer said that she had never ordered FiOS and the technician said she had an order to install FiOS.
This complaint suggests Verizon is engaging in overly-aggressive and misleading sales of FiOS. What is Verizon’s process for verifying FiOS orders?
Case #42244: This case was filed November 26, 2012 and closed March 29, 2013. The consumer, from Silver Spring, complained that over a two-month period, her DSL service was unreliable. She recorded ten instances of the DSL not working and concluded that
3 In response to OPC’s letter dated January 9, 2014, the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection sent a letter, dated January 28, 2014, enclosing complaints that were received by the office against Verizon FiOS and Verizon Online DSL.See letter from Ralph L. Vines, Administrator, Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection, January 28, 2014 to Molly G. Knoll, Assistant People’s Counsel, OPC.
4 Appendix D
she “believe[d] Verizon is not maintaining the DSL service because Verizon is trying to make me change my service to FiOS.”
DSL is provided over copper lines and so if the copper is not well-maintained, the DSL service quality may suffer. This case shows that consumers believe that Verizon is intentionally failing to maintain DSL service because Verizon wants to sell its FiOS.
Case # 43140: date filed July 19, 2013; date closed September 20, 2013. Potomac. The woman received a call from Verizon informing her that it would be entering every house in the neighborhood to upgrade lines so as to fix problems of static, dropped calls, etc. She agreed and then later called back and was informed that she had signed up for FiOS. She reported that three other people in her neighborhood had received the same call. She considered it a “scam.”
Verizon provided the script to the OCP that may have been used for the calls that the consumer described. The script states:
Hi this is Rachel from Verizon. There have been landline service issues in your area recently and we want to apologize if you have been inconvenienced. To better serve you, we would like to transition your phone service to our fiber network. There is absolutely no charge to make this transition - - you keep the same voice service at the same rate. One of our expert technicians will perform the transition and ensure that your services are all working properly. Press one now or call us at 1-877-692- 3485 today so that we can begin your transition to our best, most reliable network.
Related to this complaint, in a letter dated August 8, 2013 from Jeffrey A. Rackow, Assistant General Counsel, Verizon to Eric S. Friedman, Director, Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection, Mr. Rackow states, among other things: “The services underlying [name deleted]’s complaint – both the Verizon services she purchased and the services to which the scripts of the automated calls pertain – are telephone services that the PSC regulates. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis for you to demand documentation and answers to your various inquiries … Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction, it may be more productive for a Verizon representative to talk with you directly….” In this letter, Verizon acknowledges the PSC’s oversight of fiber-based voice. The implication seems to be that Verizon is not marketing/selling FiOS - it is “simply” upgrading copper with fiber.
This complaint illustrates possibly misleading practices of Verizon. Also, this complaint suggest possible consumer confusion that merits clarification by the PSC through consumer education.
5 Appendix D
Complaints to the OAG
While fewer in number, the complaints to the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”)
with respect to FiOS sales and marketing practices also illustrate: (1) insufficient consistency between sales representatives’ representations and customer service representatives’ statements, sometimes leading to a mismatch between what customer believes s/he has purchased and what is actually delivered; (2) rude and inadequate customer service; and (3) pressure to purchase new services.
The OAG also received complaints relating to the maintenance and repair of copper-
based service (or customer service interactions relating thereto), including complaints
that specifically mentioned problems with:
• Billing dispute; “no dial tone” during strike (206144 in Waldorf);
• DSL repair dispute (207256, Gaithersburg);
• Multiple calls to Verizon without resolution; customer originally planned to change to Comcast but cancelled that order and then lost Verizon’s service – without phone and Internet for a month and a half; lots of time on the phone with Verizon; “this is no way to be treated as a customer with many years of service” (207939, Hydes); and
• Out-of-service troubles repeatedly, “customer service is terrible” (209211, Pikesville). Many complaints filed with the OAG concern disputes about Verizon’s billing for its bundled FiOS offerings. The PSC indicates that it has no jurisdiction over VoIP, and so unless the OAG can intervene on consumers’ behalf, consumers must go to small claims court for relief. However, one complaint is relevant to consumers’ concern about
6 Appendix D
Verizon’s practices, which merit the Commission’s consideration. Among other things, the customer states:
I have two concerns. First, the company will terminate my existing telephone service once Verizon (between departments) realizes that I have canceled the FiOS upgrade. Second, Verizon will again hassle me if the telephone outage occurs again. My wife and I are retirees that simply want a DSL telephone line to access the Internet. The current cost is $35.00/month. We do not want or desire any other services, including cable television, etc. (a cost of $79.95/month). I explained this to the Verizon representative on two different occasions to no avail.4
Another illustrative consumer complaints received by the OAG follows:
Verizon did not install the requested copper line (“which by the way was the only reason I switched because Comcast doesn’t offer that service”) as part of the triple play, and customer did not learn this until there were power outages in Montgomery County that left customer without phone service. “After at least 11 phone calls during which I was being bounced from one person to another….” A Verizon representative “proceeded to inform me that whenever someone makes a change in their service, any changes whatsoever, their copper phone line automatically get (sic) switched to Digital Voice. … She replied that Verizon can change its policies at any time.” This consumer kept very detailed notes on the numerous unsatisfactory interactions with Verizon, which spanned January 2011 through at least November 2011. (209211, Pikesville).
Complaints to the OPC
The OPC has also been contacted directly by consumers and government officials who expressed concerns about the tactics Verizon is using to migrate customers from copper service to FiOS telephone service. These complaints include:
• Case # 10452-2013, created July 26, 2013, with most recent letter dated January 30, 2014, received February 3, 2014 re “Follow-Up on Verizon Forced Switch from Copper to Fiber,” in which the customer expresses concern that she was never told that maintaining copper was an option and so she felt compelled to switch to FiOS. While she was working on her PhD dissertation (“with a deadline….looming”), her phone service was going on
4 Case # MU-235150
7 Appendix D
and off, including disruptions to her DSL. She states that when she receives her monthly bill from Verizon she “experience[s] anew how completely powerless I was as I was given the option of whether to switch to fiber or find another provider.”
• E-mail communication with E. Fremont Magee of Lutherville, who complained that he was led to believe that switching from copper to fiber was not optional – “There was no suggestion that I had a choice in the matter.” He stated: “It seems to me the approach I experienced with Verizon was aggressive and less than forthright.” Mr. Magee brought the issue to the attention of the OPC, because, he asserted, his earlier complaint to the PSC5 “has not gotten any traction.”
• E-mail to Paula Carmody from the Director of the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection, Eric Friedman, asking whether OPC had received contact from consumers regarding Verizon’s marketing practices and FiOS, mentioning that his office had “received contact from consumers alleging that Verizon stated that Verizon cannot fix the landline and therefore the consumer must purchase FiOS,” and also attaching consumer complaints about Verizon “using trickery to schedule a service call as a ruse to sell FIOS.”
• Email from Judah M Mogliensky to Joyce Lombardi, Office of People’s Counsel, attaching a transcript dated 11/23/2016 with a Verizon representative named Lydia, Chat ID 1123167189. Mr. Mogliensky was trying to set up “very basic landline service” for his disabled brother, who lives in Baltimore City at 3112 Bonnie Road, Baltimore 21208-5601, just inside city limits. Although Mr. Mogliensky stated that his brother, according to the transcript, does not “use the Internet” Verizon’s agent told him that “our landline service is not eligible as a standalone product” and that “FiOS digital voice is the only option.” She only proposed an non-regulated and bundled option that would cost about $100 per month6.
• Email communication between Joyce Lombardi, Office of People’s Counsel and Matt Sommer, which stated that Mr. Sommer made several calls to Verizon on behalf of his aged parents who reside at 413 Scott Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904 and have been experiencing “chronic” problems with their copper phone line for two or three years, especially when it rained. Mr. Sommer also alleged that at least one Verizon technician told him they were told not to fix the copper, and placed a plastic bag over the wire instead. Mr. Sommer also stated that a
5 Mr. Magee forwarded copies of earlier email correspondence of his earlier correspondence with the PSC. 6 See Exhibit D-1, attached to this appendix, for a copy of the transcript, email to Ms. Lombardi, and letter that Mr. Mogliensky apparently sent to the Public Service Commission on November 30, 2016.
8 Appendix D
Verizon manager urged him instead to switch to fiber. Mr. Sommer apparently made a similar complaint to the PSC, and was issued a MSPSC complaint number 1016325114. It is my understanding that the address in question does not appear on the copper retirement notice that Verizon filed with the FCC in September, 2016.
Complaint of David Cohen (Cohen Complaint: ML #138584): 2012-2013
I also reviewed documents relating to a well-documented formal complaint against
Verizon filed with the PSC by an individual consumer (David Cohen), asserting that
Verizon was allowing the copper outside plant to deteriorate to such a point that Mr.
Cohen’s only “choice” was to migrate to FiOS. I summarize some of the essential elements of Mr. Cohen’s apparently unsuccessful attempt to obtain reliable copper-based service from Verizon. Mr. Cohen retained the various pieces of correspondence between him and Verizon relating to his unsuccessful effort to get his copper-based phone service repaired.
The final piece of correspondence that is included with the “Cohen Complaint” is a letter, dated August 21, 2013, from David M. Cohen, the complainant to the PSC, which seems to sum up the issue quite well:
In effect, staff endorses Verizon’s view that either I should accept unreliable service from Verizon (due to Verizon’s fault) and just shut up or I should change to fiber optic event though I view fiber optic service as less desirable than the copper service Verizon is required by law to provide. Verizon should be required to repair the copper lines that provide service to my home and to allow me to obtain service over those repaired lines. I suspect that this relief is impossible because, shamefully, all of Verizon’s copper lines have been allowed to deteriorate. But if that is not impossible, that is the relief to which I am entitled.
The “Cohen Package” includes as its earliest document, Mr. Cohen’s letter, dated April
15, 2012 to David J. Collins, Executive Secretary, PSC, in which he appeals the decision
9 Appendix D
of Assistant Director Linda W. Hurd, Office of External Relations, which was contained in her letter to him dated April 12, 2012. In other words, the package does not include the original papers and materials that Mr. Cohen provided to the PSC. However, the
April 15th Cohen letter explains clearly the scope and basis of the complaint. Mr. Cohen states that he:
documented the fact that Verizon had allowed its copper wires to deteriorate to the point where it specifically informed me that it could not guarantee reliable service to me and that my only choice was FiOS. Under these circumstances, I was compelled to obtain FiOS service because my wife and I are in our seventies and we cannot be without reliable telephone service. Importantly, throughout these entire proceedings, Verizon has not denied that it has permitted its copper lines to deteriorate to this extent.
Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative, Answer to Formal
Complaint of David M. Cohen is dated May 21, 2012, and, among other things, indicates that Mr. Cohen has had Verizon FiOS Digital Voice Service since October 2011, and that under Public Utilities Article § 8-602(a), the PSC lacks jurisdiction over the regulation of
VoIP.
This is an odd “catch-22” – simply because a customer has gone to a VoIP service should not alter Verizon’s ongoing regulated obligation to offer reliable copper service.
On May 24, 2012, Mr. Cohen submitted his Opposition. Indeed, as I remarked above,
Mr. Cohen observed that the VoIP argument has no merit because the Complaint does not concern VoIP. Further, Mr. Cohen states that Verizon fails to address the portion of the
Complaint that has to do with Verizon’s poor customer service. Moreover, Mr. Cohen objects to Verizon’s use of “Confidential” on its documents regarding this proceeding.
On July 5, 2013, in a four-page letter to Mr. Cohen (the Complainant) and Mr. Rackow
(the Verizon attorney), Mr. Collins, Executive Secretary of the PSC, explains that the
10 Appendix D
PSC will not dismiss the Complaint based on the “VoIP” argument (at page 2). In short, the PSC determines that “to the extent the Complaint requests an investigation, the
Complaint is hereby dismissed as moot” (based on the fact that the PSC has completed investigation of similar matters in the Case Nos. 9114 and 9123 proceedings (at page 4).
The PSC states (at pages 3-4):
The approved Proposal and Service Quality plan should ensure a higher level of customer service and enforce OER’s [Office of External Relations] direction that Verizon do more than just offer an updated service; rather, “[i]f Verizon is going to continue to offer copper wire service, [Verizon] must also be willing to maintain those copper lines.”
The PSC also states in footnote 1 of its letter: “To the extent that Mr. Cohen believes that he is entitled to damages because he was coerced into switching to
FiOS service due to Verizon’s failure to maintain its copper wire service at the time, he is entitled to seek redress in State court. See Bell Atlantic of Maryland,
Inc. v. Intercom System Corp., 366 Md 1.”
I have two observations based on this PSC letter:
(1) the quoted language above seems to suggest that only “if Verizon is going to continue to offer copper wire service” (emphasis added), is the company required to maintain them. Does this mean that Verizon is allowed to choose when and where to offer copper wire service? (2) The PSC’s suggestion that consumers seek redress in State court unfairly shifts the burden to small consumers, who lack the legal resources possessed by Verizon. On August 2, 2013, Mr. Rackow sent a letter to the PSC and stated, among other things, that consumer have the option to purchased tariffed, regulated telephone service over fiber facilities (as opposed to unregulated FiOS digital voice) (at page 1). Mr. Rackow also indicates that “[i]f Mr. Cohen decides that he wants
Verizon to migrate his service back to regulated voice service provided over
11 Appendix D
copper facilities in use in his area, the process would require a technician visit. In
either case there would be no charge for migrating Mr. Cohen’s service to
regulated telephone service” (at page 2). Mr. Rackow also mentioned Mr.
Cohen’s acknowledgement that his loss of phone service during a commercial
power outage may have been attributable to his use of his cordless telephone set
(which requires power regardless of whether services are provided over fiber or
copper) (at 2). Indeed, there may be widespread consumer confusion on this
tangential issue about cordless telephones, which requires consumer education.
On August 5, 2013, Mr. Cohen responded to Verizon in a well-written, three-page
letter in which he reiterated his fundamental concern about Verizon’s failure to maintain its copper network and the consequence that the “choice” of being able to return to copper does not address the underlying problem that such a “choice” is meaningless if the copper is not maintained (my words, not his).
On August 16, 2013, Chuck McLean, Deputy Staff Counsel, PSC, sent a letter accompanying a two-page Staff recommendation (by Tanu Pongsiri, Regulatory
Economist, and Juan C. Alvarado, Director) that the Commission close the complaint.
On August 21, 2013, as I summarize above, Mr. Cohen sent the last
correspondence, in which he observes that the Staff recommendation fails to
12 Appendix D
address the underlying issue of Verizon’s neglect of its copper wires – one cannot represent that copper is a “choice” if it is in bad condition.
CONCLUSION
My review of the various complaints submitted by customers in recent years to several government agencies corroborates the concerns that I discuss in my affidavit.
13 Appendix D Appendix D-1 Appendix D-1 Appendix D-1 Appendix D-1 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Complaint Date of Page 1 of 6 Number Complaint COMMENTpg City ZIP the Village at Rockville, Retirement community. They reports FiOS contractor are ######### installing service without the resident 19596 permission. Rockville 20850 Sub reports she was late paying her telephone bill land Verizon interrupted her telephone service. Sub reports Verizon explained in order to retain her number she must reconnect telephone service under the ######### digital telephone service. Sub reports Verizon is explained copper service is not available in her area and she is required to have digital telephone service. The home number is interrupted, please call on the mobile 19600 number. Silver Spring 20904 Sub has POTS service and called Verizon because there was static on the line. Sub reports Verizon explained they would take care of it and several days later, Miss Utility ######### was marking the lawn. Sub reports she is a senior citizen and does not want to change her telephone service to digital. Sub reports Verizon is scheduled to come to her house 19618 today but she does not know why. Potomac 20854 DSL sub called Verizon to reports as DSL problem and was routed to FiOS sales. He ######### explained the problem and was told the only 19665 solution was switch to FiOS. Germantown 20874 See attached. Sub reports she received notification that her phone service would be switch to fiber. Sub reports she never ######### ordered this switch yet Verizon explained the appointment was made 12/6/2013. Sub does not want to switch her phone service to 19685 Fiber. Chevy Chase 20815 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Page 2 of 6 Sub reports audio issue with their Verizon traditional telephone service. Sub contacted ######### Verizon and Verizon is trying to convince the sub to switch to Fiber. Sub reports they do not want to switch service to fiber, they want 19714 to keep there traditional telephone service. Silver Spring 20902 Verizon is trying to convince the sub to switch to Fiber. Sub reports they do not want ######### to switch service to fiber, they want to keep 19747 there traditional telephone service. Montgomery V20886 inturrupted and she contacted Verizon. Verizon explained a line has been cut in her area and she would need to have fiber service installed if she wanted telephone service. ######### Her telephone stil does not work. Sub does not want fiber telephone service.
Contact person is her sister Olga Suarez 301- 19776 718-9535 Bethesda 20816
Complainant reports they received an unsolicited call from Verizon apologizing for static on the line and interrupted traditional ######### telephone. Verizon is explaining to the sub she needs to switch to FiOS to avoid further problems. Please contact her son, the 19780 complainant, at 301-963-0339. Chevy Chase 20815 See attached. Sub reports Verizon is failing 3/6/2014 to honor a two-year agreement entered into 19808 on February 12, 2014. Chevy Chase 20815
Complainant reports there are exposed Verizon UG line in their yard from when Verizon installed FiOS throughout the ######### neighborhood. Complainant contacted Verizon to have the lines addressed and was told they needed to switch to fiber telephone 19840 to have the lines taken care of. Potomac 20854 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Resident received an automated call about Page 3 of 6 having is copper line switched out to FiOS and it is schudeled for 3/26/14 in the morning. Mr. Dundebin does not want to ######### switch out his copper service for FiOS and does not want anyone to come to his home. Please contact Mr. Dunbebin to resolve this 19843 issue. Silver Spring 20912 See attached. Sub reports his copper line ######### service is out and Verizon is forcing him into 19978 Fiber.See attached. Sub reports static on the Rockville 20850 copper telephone line and Verizon explained ######### they will not repair the problem, only install 20256 FiOS. Bethesda 20814 Sub reports noise on the home telephone ######### line. Sub reports he contacted Verizon and 20315 was told he is required to switch to FiOS. Bethesda 20814 See attached. Complainant reports Verizon ######### explained it was impossible to get copper 20463 telephone service, only FiOS. Rockville 20853 See attached. Sub reports Verizon forced them to switch to FiOS telephone service ######### when they moved to a different apartment. Sub reports the LifeLine service has been 20609 disconnected. Silver Spring 20910 Sub reports after a service call she received a package from Verizon with the equipment needed to upgrade to FiOS. Sub did not ######### request the equipment and reports the service tech had offered to upgrade her DSL service to FiOS but she declined. Now she has equipment that was mailed to her that needs 20816 to be picked up at her residence. Bethesda 20814 Sub reports heavy static on the telephone line, number 301-279-7914. Sub reports they ######### called Verizon and were told they must switch to FiOS to correct the problem. Sub 20836 reports they do not want to switch to FiOS. Potomac 20854 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Page 4 of 6 Our office submitted a complaint (#20816) on April 20, 2015. Once the issue was resolved with a technician visit, the technician asked the sub if she would be interested in FiOS. The subscriber explained she was not. Several days later she received a self install kit in the mail with the equipment to ######### establish FiOS. The complainant contacted Verizon who picked up the equipment. The sub received an email reporting the equipment has not been returned. (attached). The sub is concerned that Verizon has not properly acknowledged the return of the 20881 equipment. Bethesda 20814 See attached. Complainant has Verizon DSL and called to inquire about FiOS. Verizon 7/7/2015 explained the only way to get FiOS is to give 20989 up the copper lined telephone service. Silver Spring 20910 Sub reports he wants Internet and phone service but does not want to switch to FiOS. Sub currently has DSL. He was told by Verizon the copper lines are being abandon ######### and the only way is to get FiOS. He has an installation for FiOS tomorrow but this is not what he wants. He was pushed in FiOS as it was explained it was his only option. Please 21181 contact today. Chevy Chase 20815 Old address: 223 congressional Lane, #223, Rockville, MD 20852 ######### Sub reports he wants to transfer his DSL and 21250 land-line to the new address. Gaithersburg 20882 Sub reports she was installed with FiOS on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 but never ordered and was never told the telephone service would be switch to FiOS phone ######### service. Sub reports her telephone was out for a day and she wants to have her original copper line reinstated and the FiOS phone 21254 service removed. Silver Spring 20901 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Page 5 of 6 Complainant reports he was contacted by Verizon reporting this copper line telephone was being phased out. Verizon rep explained that the copper line is being pulled from the street and he needed to switch to fiber digital telephone service. The Verizon rep continued explaining within the next two ######### weeks, a Verizon crew would be out to switch his telephone service. The crew arrived a week early, without notice and ran a fiber line to the house. In the process, the Verizon crew damaged an ONT housing on the side of his house. Complainantn 21299 switched to Comcast. No action needed. Potomac 20854 Traditional telephone sub reports issues with the phone line either goes completely out when it rains or has a constant buzz ######### when working. The buzzing is only heard at the subs end (within the home) and not 21371 heard at the other end. Silver Spring 20904 Complainant reports he is the President and on the Board of the Ravenwood Home Owners ######### Association and Verizon has contacted those residents with DSL explaining they must 21406 migrate to FiOS. Silver Spring 20902 Property Manager reports Verizon was going to upgrade their DSL service to a higher megabit. Verizon disconnected the DSL service and informed the Property Manager that a higher DSL service is not available, 3/8/2016 only FiOS was available. They do not want FiOS. Property Manager reports they are without Internet service and Verizon is not providing proper assistance in restoring 21518 Internet service. Rockville 20852 See attached. Complainant reports he never ######### 21696 ordered Verizon FiOS. North Potoma 20878
######### See attached. Sub reports no telephone 21713 service for the past two months. Bethesda 20816 Appendix E Summary of Complaints to Montgomery County Page 6 of 6 Sub reports static on his traditional copper line telephone service and was told by a Verizon representative that he needed to either take FiOS or cancel service. Sub reports he was notified that an order for FiOS ######### had been placed. He was told by a Verizon representative that if he didn't take FiOS he would be force to take it or simply switch providers. Sub had put in a repair order for copper line telephone service not an order for FiOS. Sub reports a tech showed up today to 21797 repair his copper telephone service. Kensington 20895