EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Evaluate Telecommunications Corporations Service R.11-12-001 Quality Performance and Consider Modifications to Service Quality Rules
EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK (TURN) URGING THE COMMISSION TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PROTECT VERIZON CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF VERIZON'S LANDLINE NETWORK
William R. Nusbaum Managing Attorney [email protected]
Christine Mailloux Staff Attorney [email protected]
Regina Costa Telecommunications Research Director [email protected]
The Utility Reform Network 785 Market St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: 415-929-8876 Fax: 415-9291132
Filed: March 17, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. SUMMARY OF VERIZON’S ACTIONS TO DEGRADE SERVICE QUALITY...... 1 III. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RELIEF ...... 5
IV. THE RECORD TO DATE ALREADY SHOWS THAT VERIZON HAS FAILED TO MEET IT'S STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE...... 6 V. NEW EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT VERIZON IS ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY TO FORGO NECESSARY MAINTENANCE AND, INSTEAD, FORCE CALIFORNIA PHONE SERVICE CUSTOMERS TO MIGRATE TO NON-COPPER SERVICES...... 10
! "T!$#0'8-,!+312-+#0!0'%0 2'-,!+-+.* ',21!2-!2&#!+-++'11'-,!6&-5!2&#!8##"!$-0! ;++#"' 2#!"!2'-,!',!2&'1!=-!)#2!2-!?0-2#!2!+312-+#01! ,"!?0#4#,2!!A302�! =#%0 " 2'-,!-$!$#0'8-,_1!8#25-0)T!UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTT!TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!SS! VI. VERIZON CUSTOMERS ARE HARMED BY FORCED MIGRATION TO ET!!0'%0 2'-,!2-!$-'!#!F',)!G'**!H '1#!6'+'* 0!+-,!#0,1!$-0!+312-+#01T!TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!S[! FIOS OR VOICE LINK...... 21 VII. VERIZON’S PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA ARE PART OF A NATIONAL STRATEGY, AS EVIDENCE BY ITS ACTIONS IN NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ...... 26
"T!!$#0'8-,!A-0!#"!0'%0 2'-,!2-!A'J6!TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!TX!
ET!A-0!#"!0'%0 2'-,!2-!$-'!#!F',)!TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!TZ! VIII. THE COMMISSION SHOULD IMMEDIATELY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF VERIZON’S CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF VERIZON’S NETWORK...... 31 IX. CONCLUSION ...... 33 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, The
Utility Reform Network ("TURN") hereby requests the Commission to take immediate action to protect the interests of Verizon California's customers and prevent further deterioration of Verizon's landline network. This motion is appropriately filed in R.11-12-
001 because the actions of Verizon addressed herein are directly related to issues within the scope of this docket. Verizon is engaging in business practices that are contrary to its statutory obligation to provide adequate service and are harmful to the interests of its
California customers. Specifically, Verizon is deliberately neglecting the repair and maintenance of its copper network with the explicit goal of migrating basic telephone service customers who experience service problems. These migrations are often without the customers’ knowledge or consent. Moreover, Verizon is migrating these customers to a largely deregulated fiber-based telephone service that is inferior to basic phone service in certain key respects. TURN urges the Commission to immediately implement the remedies, discussed below in Sections III and VIII, to prevent further unlawful deterioration of Verizon’s copper network and protect the interests of Verizon’s California customers.
II. SUMMARY OF VERIZON’S ACTIONS TO DEGRADE SERVICE QUALITY. A key set of issues in this case, as outlined in the Assigned Commissioner’s
September 24, 2012 Scoping Memo and Ruling in R.11-12-001 (“Scoping Memo”), relates to adequacy of telephone plant, including whether telecommunications facilities are being appropriately maintained, whether services are provided in a manner consistent with
1 public safety, and whether company business practices affect service quality experienced by customers.1 As a regulated telephone corporation and carrier of last resort, Verizon is obligated to maintain adequate facilities, including performing repairs necessary to provide basic telephone service of reasonable quality to its customers.2 As demonstrated below through information already in the record, complaints submitted to the CPUC by
Verizon’s California customers from cities such as Long Beach, Cerritos and Torrance
(addressed in this motion) and evidence about Verizon’s business practices in other states,
TURN will show that Verizon has failed to meet its statutory obligation to furnish and maintain adequate facilities necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public. Specifically:
1) Verizon does not adequately repair and maintain the copper network necessary to provide regulated basic telephone service (and other telecommunications services). Instead, Verizon deliberately allows its regulated network to deteriorate.
2) In some cases, Verizon refuses to repair the copper plant necessary to provide regulated landline telephone service when basic telephone service customers request repair.
3) Verizon has a policy and practice of surreptitiously “migrating” unwitting California basic phone service customers who request service repair away from their phone service of choice to other Verizon services, such as FiOS (which is a largely deregulated VoIP phone service) and possibly to a new fixed wireless service called Voice Link. Customers are migrated to FiOS in neighborhoods where fiber has been installed with planned migration to Voice Link in non-FiOS neighborhoods. In the case of FiOS migration, at least some customers are not informed that they are being migrated. Furthermore, customers are not informed of the ramifications of being moved from regulated basic phone service to a largely deregulated VoIP phone service, with diminished consumer protections, that is inferior to basic phone service
1 Scoping Memo, pp. 4-5, 5-6, 9. 2 PU Code §451, cited in Scoping Memo, p. 9.
2 in certain important respects, including superior reliability during prolonged power outages.
4) It is unclear whether a trouble ticket is always generated when a customer calls in requesting repair and is migrated to FiOS, or whether only an installation order for FiOS is created. If trouble tickets are not generated it would have the effect of reducing the number of trouble tickets and reduce the magnitude of service quality problems reflected in Verizon’s service quality reports to the Commission, pursuant to G.O. 133-C.
5) Verizon misleads or lies to basic phone service customers who request service repair about its attempts to migrate them to a different service. Verizon does not always inform customers that they are being migrated to FiOS. In some instances, Verizon has migrated senior citizens without their consent.
6) Many customers who call repair centers to have their copper-based landline service repaired become upset when Verizon tries to install FiOS instead of repairing the phone line.
7) Regarding Verizon’s desire to migrate customers to Voice Link, a customer of basic telephone service who makes two calls to a Verizon repair center for outside plant problems within six months is deemed a “chronic customer.” Nationally, it is Verizon’s goal to migrate “chronic customers” to Voice Link, in lieu of maintaining and repairing copper plant and there is no reason to think that this national goal will not be pursued in California.
Verizon’s efforts to deceive customers and its policies and practices pertaining to inadequate maintenance, and customer migration instead of repair are directly tied to this docket because these deceptive practices occur as a result of a basic telephone service customer contacting Verizon to request phone service repair. These issues are addressed in more detail in Section V of this Motion.
3 As discussed in Sections VI and VII, Verizon’s policy and practice of failing to maintain and repair service and then “migrating” customers away from copper-based landline to FiOS or Voice Link in California is similar to Verizon’s efforts in New York,
New Jersey and the District of Columbia to abandon copper plant and force customers to
Voice Link. These efforts have been opposed by numerous parties, including the New
York Attorney General’s Office, CWA District 1, AARP, first responders, Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), the D.C. Office of People's Counsel, elected officials and thousands of residents of the communities where Verizon is refusing to restore copper-based landline telephone service.
Further, in Section VI we address the harm to customers caused by Verizon’s business practices aimed at customer migration through deliberate neglect of its network.
Basic telephone service customers migrated to FiOS lose valued regulatory protections.
FiOS is a fiber-based Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. Given recent state legislative action, carriers like Verizon will likely assert that digital voice service offered through FiOS is not subject to most of the universal service and consumer protection requirements that apply to non-VoIP, copper-based landline basic telephone service. As further explained in Section VI, Voice Link is a newly introduced fixed wireless service that is functionally inferior to regulated, non-VoIP, copper-based landline telephone service in several key respects. Both FiOS and Voice Link rely on the public power system and during lengthy power outages, phone service -- including access to 911 -- will cease to operate when the batteries at a customer’s home are depleted.
The need for immediate Commission action to prevent further unlawful degradation of Verizon’s network and put a halt to Verizon’s unscrupulous treatment of its
4 basic telephone service customers is clear. In Section VIII of this motion, TURN recommends actions that the Commission should take to preserve service quality and protect Verizon’s customers.
III. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RELIEF TURN requests that the Commission take the following actions.
1) The Commission should issue an order requiring Verizon to: 1) repair the service of copper-based landline telephone service customers who contact the repair center; 2) restore copper-based service to customers who wished to retain it but were migrated to FiOS or Voice Link; and 3) cease the deceptive and misleading marketing practices reported by Verizon customers in their complaints to the Commission. (See Attachment 1 and Section V of this motion.)
2) The Commission should investigate whether, and to what extent, Verizon’s customer migration practices and failure to maintain the copper network in certain communities take unfair advantage of senior citizens, customers on low incomes and limited English speaking populations.
3) The Commission should require Verizon to provide data, by location, on the number of customers who have been migrated and where the data indicates even minor concentrations of customer migrations, those areas should be included in the examination into the adequacy of Verizon’s network maintenance and investment described in the September 24, 2012 Scoping Memo.
4) The Commission should determine whether a customer call to Verizon's repair line results in Verizon generating a trouble ticket when the customer is voluntarily or involuntarily migrated. There are indications in the customer complaints that trouble tickets may not be generated in all instances. If this is the case, the data reported by Verizon pursuant to Commission service quality reporting requirements may be misleading and may understate Verizon service quality problems.
5) The Commission should require Verizon to provide proof that customers who have been migrated to FiOS “receive the same voice service at the exact same monthly price” and continue to be “subject to the same
5 regulatory oversight as the customer’s previous copper-based service” as previously represented to the Commission by Verizon.3
6) Once the Commission issues the order to cease and desist its misleading marketing practices, Verizon should be required to submit to the Commission all information provided to customers pertaining to customer migration and all training material, customer representative scripts, technician scripts and other directions to Verizon employees regarding its copper repair and customer migration practices.
7) The Commission should verify whether Verizon has complied with the requirements of D.10-01-026 and provided customers migrated to FiOS or Voice Link with mandated information on back-up power requirements for these services to function during power outages.
8) The Commission should move promptly to prevent further unlawful deterioration of Verizon’s network. In accordance with the Scoping Memo in this docket, the Commission should move as quickly as possible to fully investigate whether Verizon (and AT&T) is adequately maintaining it’s copper network. This requires issuance of the RFP as described in the September 24, 2012 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling and Scoping Memo.
9) As part of the Commission’s investigation, Verizon should be required to provide the CPUC with data regarding the number of employees transferred to Voice Link and hired to provide Voice Link. Verizon should be required to provide CPUC with data regarding the expenditures for customer migration and investment in Voice Link so that the Commission can compare the resources Verizon has devoted to migrating customers with the resources Verizon has devoted to maintaining its copper-based basic telephone service.
IV. THE RECORD TO DATE ALREADY SHOWS THAT VERIZON HAS FAILED TO MEET IT'S STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE.
As the September 24, 2012 Scoping Memo recognizes, Public Utilities Code ("PU
Code") § 451 requires all utilities, including Verizon, to:
3 R.11-12-001, Reply Declaration of Thomas Maguire for Verizon California, March 12, 2012, para. 8. (“Maguire Declaration”).
6 [f]urnish and maintain such adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable service, instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities, including telephone facilities, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, as are necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public.4 (emphasis added)
Further, both the Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”) and Scoping Memo in this docket acknowledge that the Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that telephone corporations such as Verizon provide customer service that meets “reasonable statewide service quality standards including, but not limited to, standards regarding network technical quality, customer service, installation, repair and billing” under PU Code §
2896.5 The Scoping Memo states that the Commission “has a responsibility to ensure that services overseen by the Commission are provided in a manner consistent with the public safety.”6
The OIR contains evidence suggesting that Verizon has not adequately maintained its landline network and has failed to comply with the service quality standards set forth in
G.O. 133-C. The OIR included as an attachment the March 2011 Communications
Division Staff Report (“CD Report”) which states that Verizon “did not meet the Out-of-
Service repair standard for all of the reporting months of 2010.”7 The CD report documents the facts that during the Southern California storms of December 2010,
Verizon had approximately 73,047 storm related trouble tickets, of which 18,262 (25 percent) were not cleared within six days and that approximately 7,100 lines (10 percent)
4 PU Code §451, cited in Scoping Memo, p. 9. 5 See, OIR, p. 2; Scoping Memo, p. 5; both citing D.09-07-019, p. 12, PU Code § 2896. 6 Scoping Memo, p. 5-6. 7 OIR, p. 6; California Public Utilities Commission, Communications Division, Report on Telephone Carrier Service Quality for the Year 2010,” March 2011, p. 7.
7 were still not repaired for at least two weeks.8 The Scoping Memo states that one conclusion that might be drawn from the CD Report is that “existing competitive forces and minimal standards are not sufficient to provide the service quality the Commission is required to ensure, and the level of public safety the Commission is committed to upholding.”9
Further evidence of Verizon’s failure to adequately maintain its facilities was presented at the Commission’s January 31, 2013 Workshop, and addressed in both the
Post Workshop Comments of the Communications Workers of America, District 9 and the
Post-Workshop Comments of TURN and CALTEL. Attachment 1 to CWA’s comments contains pictures illustrating Verizon’s poor maintenance practices in both Chico and
Southern California, including improperly secured and exposed cable covered by a plastic bag.10 The TURN/CALTEL comments quote Verizon’s Chief Financial Officer, Fran
Shammo, on the company’s business plan to degrade copper facilities:
Then the third strategic thing we are doing that I think improves our margins is we are really proactively going after these copper customers in the FiOS footprint and moving them to FiOS. So if you are a voice copper customer and you call in that says you are having trouble on your line, when we go out to repair that we are actually moving you to the FiOS product. We are not repairing the copper anymore.11
The TURN/CALTEL comments also memorialized information presented at the workshop
8 CD Report, p. 12. 9 Scoping Memo, p. 6. 10 R. 11-12-001, Post-Workshop Comments of the Communications Workers of America, District 9 February 28, 2012, Attachment 1. 11 R. 11-12-001, Post-Workshop Comments of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and CALTEL ("TURN/CALTEL Post-Workshop Comments") February 28, 2012, p. 1, citing to THOMSON REUTERS STREETEVENTS EDITED TRANSCRIPT VZ – Verizon at Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc. Technology, Internet & Communications Conference, AUGUST 15, 2012, p. 12. http://www.22.verizon.com/idc/groups/public/documents/adacct/oppenheimer_vz_transcript.pdf
8 regarding the adequacy of Verizon’s workforce. From 2006-2012 Verizon reduced its
California workforce by over 2,600 employees.12 Moreover, while Verizon claimed to have increased its technical staff, in reality those positions were due to the hiring of non- union inside plant technicians who have been trained to exclusively work in the home to install FiOS,13 but not trained to repair and maintain outside plant. Instead, Verizon has reduced the staff that have the experience and training necessary to maintain outside plant.14 Further, at the workshop and as reflected in the TURN/CALTEL Comments,
TURN described information provided to TURN by a Verizon service technician from a rural area of Southern California to make the point that there is a relationship between investment, staffing, service quality and Verizon’s policy to “migrate” customers away from copper-based non-VoIP landline to fiber. Specifically, approximately two-and-one half years ago Verizon stopped routinely inspecting and maintaining batteries in remote terminals necessary for landline service to function during power outages. This essential maintenance work has become sporadic and is now carried out by non-union, contract employees. When customers lose phone service, they contact the Verizon repair line and are told that it could take up to two weeks to “get someone out there” to restore service, but that the customer could switch to FiOS and get the service right away.15
The purpose of the workshop was to provide Commission staff with the information necessary to develop an RFP as the first step in the process of the
Commission engaging an independent expert to assess whether Verizon and AT&T are
12 TURN/CALTEL Post-Workshop Comments, p. 2. 13 Id., p. 2-3. 14 Id., p. 3. 15 Id., p. 15.
9 adequately maintaining their outside plant.16 Already, before the RFP has even been issued, the Commission has evidence showing that Verizon’s outside plant is not being maintained. Now, based on further information provided below in Section V, it is clear that Verizon is taking advantage of its own decision to allow its facilities to deteriorate as a prelude to trying to force customers to abandon their regulated landline telephone service when service quality becomes unacceptable. The Commission cannot allow this situation to continue.
V. NEW EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT VERIZON IS ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY TO FORGO NECESSARY MAINTENANCE AND, INSTEAD, FORCE CALIFORNIA PHONE SERVICE CUSTOMERS TO MIGRATE TO NON-COPPER SERVICES.
Since late 2011, Verizon has implemented a program both nationally and in
California to “migrate” copper-based basic telephone service customers away from services provided on the copper network and over to services provided on the fiber facilities that are used to provide FiOS.17 Migration is triggered when customers with copper-based telephone service contact a Verizon repair center to report problems and request service repair. Repeat calls to the repair center result in a one-way ticket to FiOS.
TURN refers to situations where a customer does not wish to “migrate” and prefers to continue receiving phone service over copper-based landlines as “forced migration” or
“involuntary migration.” Verizon’s migration program has been expanded nationally to involve migration of copper landline phone customers to a fixed wireless service called
16 R.11-12-001, Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling On The January 31, 2013 Workshop, January 18, 2013, p. 1. 17 R.11-12-001, Reply Declaration of Thomas Maguire for Verizon California, March 12, 2012, at paras. 10, 26 and 19. (“Maguire Declaration”).
10 Voice Link in areas where FiOS has not been deployed.18
A. Verizon Customer Migration Complaints to the Commission Show the Need for Immediate Action in this Docket to Protect Customers and Prevent Further Degradation of Verizon’s Network.
The fact that Verizon’s customer migration policy with respect to FiOS has been in
effect in California since at least 2012 is reflected in complaints to the Commission from
Verizon California customers in 2012 and 2013. TURN obtained copies of the complaints
on January 29, 2014, stripped of information that would identify complainants, pursuant to
a request to the Commission’s Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB). While individual
customers are not identified, the complaints mentioned the cities of Long Beach (Case No.
290514, August 2013), Cerritos (Case No. 209246, February 2012) and Torrance (Case
No. 296113, October 2013). The complaints obtained by TURN are included as
Attachment 1 to this pleading. CAB reported 15 complaints regarding Verizon customer
migration in 2012 and 17 complaints in 2013. Evidence of Verizon’s company-wide
polices and research on customer complaints being only the “tip of the iceberg” suggest
that it is highly likely that many more Verizon customers share the views of the customers
who complained to the Commission. Indeed, at least two complaints noted that other
people in their neighborhood had experienced the same problems with Verizon’s
migration practices.19
Verizon’s policy is to migrate those customers who are deemed “chronic”
customers because they have contacted Verizon’s repair line and required two truck rolls
18 See, for example, Communications Daily, May 13, 2013, p. 10.. It is not yet clear when Verizon will deploy Voice Link – and migrate customers to Voice Link - in California, but CWA District 9, representing Verizon California employees, apparently believes that it will occur here shortly, if it has not already begun. http://district9.cwa-union.org/news/entry/beware_of_verizons_voice_link#.UyJFQ16d7eY 19 See Case No. 264765, March 2013 and Case No. 274947, May 2013.
11 during a six-month period.20 This criterion is telling because it is Verizon’s decision to reduce or eliminate necessary maintenance of its copper network that is causing the network to deteriorate and the resulting service quality problems that prompt customers to request repair. This point was echoed by one complaint which stated “[o]ur concern is that they are deliberately allowing network issues to occur to force customers into buying their services. We are not the first family we know of with a Verizon phone line to experience this issue.”21 The information provided by Verizon customers in complaints to the CPUC during 2012 and 2013 underscores the need for immediate Commission action to protect Verizon customers and prevent further unlawful deterioration of Verizon’s copper landline network.
Involuntary or forced migration of customers to FiOS is particularly concerning to
TURN because many of these customers are unaware that they are being migrated by
Verizon from a regulated telephone service to FiOS, a VoIP telephone service that
Verizon will likely claim is now largely unregulated and devoid of key consumer protections pursuant to SB 1161. This concern is reflected in complaints to the
Commission stating that the customers do not want to be migrated to FiOS because they do not want to subscribe to an unregulated telephone service.22
Verizon has represented to the Commission that customers who subscribe to only voice service who are migrated to the fiber platform receive “the same voice service at the
20 Fran Shammo, Verizon Communications Inc. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Thompson Reuters StreetEvents, Edited Transcript, VZ – Verizon at Bank of America/Merrill Lynch 2012 Media, Communications and Entertainment conference, September 12, 2012, p. 8 (“Shammo, 12/12/2012.”) http://www.verizon.com/investor/DocServlet?doc=bofa_vz_transcript_091212.pdf 21 Case No. 274947, May 2013. 22 See, for example, Case No. 267321 (March 2013); Case No. 269927, April 2013; Case No. 263807, February 2013, the customer “is adamant about keeping his service analog as VoIP is not a regulated service;” and Case No. 290514, August 2013.
12 exact same monthly price” and “would not be converted to VoIP and thus would be subject to the same regulatory oversight as the customer’s previous copper-based voice service.”23 Verizon’s representations to the financial community and the experience of customers who have complained to the CPUC tell a different story. For example, Verizon
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo stated:
So if I can take that chronic customer and move them to FiOS, I deplete the amount of operational expense to keep that customer on and now I have moved them over to the FiOS network where they get the benefits of FiOS digital voice [sic], which is clearer.24
Verizon’s web site provides this description of FiOS Digital Voice: FiOS Digital Voice is a specific type of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP).25
Customer complaints demonstrate that Verizon has not permitted all customers who are migrated to retain or return to their existing service. For example, according to two complaints submitted to the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB), in 2012
Verizon California executive Margaret Serjak sent a letter to California customers informing them that due to "landline service issues" in their area customers needed to transition to FiOS.26 One of these complainants informed the Commission that the letter said "[t]his transition will be no charge to us and we keep our current service at the same rate by calling their representative.27 But when speaking with a Verizon representative, the complainant was told that "their current service would not be connected to it [the fiber]
23 Maguire Declaration, para. 8. 24 Shammo, 12/12/2012, p. 8. 25 http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/phone/homephone/general+support/fios+voice+servic e/fvs/121150.htm 26 Case No., 213503, March, 2012 and Case Number 239620, September 2012. 27 Case No. 239620, September, 2012. Other complainants also stated that they were told that if they migrated from the copper network to Verizon’s fiber network they had to subscribe to FiOS. See, for example, Case Nos. 209246 (February 2012) and 214029 (March 2012).
13 if they elect to keep it." The complainant characterized Verizon’s customer migration effort as "a classic bait and switch practice," with the true intent of moving customers to
FiOS. Another customer told the CPUC that “Verizon has a rule that if a home has FiOS installed for internet and television it must move the copper wire landline telephone service to FiOS telephone.”28
In essence, line-by-line, Verizon is eliminating the regulated basic telephone service which, as a carrier of last resort, a telephone corporation, pursuant to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), it is obligated to provide. Several complainants reported that they were told that once they were migrated to FiOS, their copper facilities would not be reconnected despite the desire of the customers to retain or return to regulated copper-based telephone service.29 For example, one customer told the
Commission that,
[a]ll three of the Verizon FiOS techs that have been here have told me that the copper lines can be used but Verizon is trying to remove them to eliminate options/competition by controlling everything through the Fios [sic] network.
Request of CPUC: Help me to get the phone service connected through the original copper lines.30
Another customer was very upset about Verizon removing copper lines.31 The customer stated that s/he has had Verizon copper based phone lines and/or DSL services from 2006 to March 2013. On 3/12/13, the customer ordered new services from Verizon and Verizon came out the same day to install the new services. At the time, the customer
“did not know that Verizon removed my copper phone lines without my knowledge when
28 Case No. 205545 (January 2012). 29 See for example, Case no 305339 (December 2013), 267321 (March 2013), Case No. 263807, (February 2013); Case No. 269927 (March 2013). 30 Case No. 258489 (January 2013). 31 Case No. 267321 (March 2013).
14 I requested additional services. I was not made aware that they would be doing this and would not have agreed to it.” The customer reported that,
Verizon told me that there was no going back to my old services, that my copper lines were pulled from my house when I added services (I looked outside and my copper lines are still there) [.] Verizon stated that they will not convert customers back once this change was made as they are migrating people and it was too costly for Verizon to put back my previous services.
The customer’s complaint further stated:
Request of CPUC: I never authorized Verizon to REMOVE my copper lines, only to add services. I am unhappy with the new services and want my old services put back. This is not impossible, just “costly” according to Verizon. This is fraud. They advertise that if you are unhappy with the services you can cancel anytime. However, they do not advise you that if you cancel you will not be able to get your old services back, nor will you ever be able to obtain services from anyone else. I WANT MY ORIGINAL COPPER LAND LINE AND DSL REINSTALLED.32
Another complaint from December 2013 tells the story of a customer who requested to have the fiber service discontinued and to be returned to copper landline service because the fiber service did not work with LifeAlert or the security system during power outages. A work order was submitted to transfer service back to copper, and the customer was assured it would take “from a few minutes to 4 hours” to restore the copper line:
However that was not the case. We were out of phone service for 4 entire days. I contacted Verizon about no phone service. Within minutes the phone service was restored. I asked them if the phone service was going to be the COPPER line. They assured me that it was going to be as we ordered (Copper Line). Since November 22, 2013 I continue to have fiber line. I have called Verizon time after time and now it is unfortunate that they say they cannot restore my line to copper. Verizon has continued to deny my request and take me on a wild goose chase. Request of CPUC: Have Verizon restore my Land Line to Copper.33
There is evidence from the complaints that senior citizens have been switched to
32 Id. See, also, Case No. 305339 (December 2013) and Case No. 267321 (March 2013). 33 Case No. 305339 (December 2013).
15 FiOS without their consent and without fully understanding what had happened. One household thought that Internet and television were being switched to FiOS and that the telephone service would remain on the copper line. The person who assisted the household and filed the complaint stated:
The residents at this address are over 90 years old & need the more reliable service and 911 access. When I called to explain the phone stopped working I call [sic] the copper line repair. The person told me that the phone was now on FiOS and I would be transferred. I asked to speak with a supervisor and was put on hold for 1 hour and 45 minutes before I hung up. Later in the day the phone started to work. …. Request of CPUC: 1. Verify that 310-375-xxxx is a copper line 2. If the line is FiOS have verizon change it to copper which was our original agreement. 3. I lost 2 billable hour [sic], please have Verizon compensate me for my lost income.34
Another complaint, filed by the Verizon customer’s grandchild, states that Verizon suspended the grandmother’s telephone service “due to the fact that she has not upgraded to their FiOS service. She is an elderly woman and does not wish to be forced into having something that is one, falsely represented and two, something she does not require.” The complainant states that Verizon has informed them that the woman will be without service unless the customer converts to FiOS.35
At least one Lifeline customer has submitted complaints about Verizon’s forced migration practices. The customer called Verizon to transfer landline telephone service to a new address:
34 Case No. 296113, (October 2013). 35 Case No. 214029 (March 2012). See also Case No. 284424 (July 2013). Verizon migrated a 96 year old woman to FiOS. On July 25, 2013, Verizon technicians disconnected the copper line, but did not finish the FiOS installation, left the site and left the woman with no telephone service. The woman’s daughter worked frantically to have Verizon restore service, spending over three hours on the phone with Verizon, had a repair scheduled and then cancelled and was told that the phone could not be repaired until August 1. Verizon provided the elderly woman with a cell phone which she cannot use because she is hard of hearing.
16 I was then informed that Verizon starting this month will no longer provide just landline service and you also need to purchase Fios [sic] internet also. I have been on the Lifeline program for over 7 years and now they are forcing me to get their internet as well. I can not afford Fios [sic]. This is wrong and they need to stop this as the apartment we are moving to only has Verizon as a carrier.36
The experience of customers that have filed complaints with the Commission provides further support for the evidence presented in comments and at the January 2012 workshop that Verizon applies a double standard to repairing the copper-based phone service versus FiOS installation. Verizon is quick to offer FiOS installation, but the requested repair of copper-based phone service is subject to long delays. For example, one complaint stated,
A person named xxxxx from Verizon is threatening that if we don’t switch over to digital and get rid of copper that their response time for fixing any phone problems will go from 1 to two days too [sic] two weeks. I assume they must be doing this with all businesses. I thought the Public Utility Commission should know that Verizon is trying to pressure their customers into making a change based on withholding repair services for two weeks. Since they have a monopoly on local phone service this seems to be against public policy and not in the best interest for consumer protection.37
Yet another complaint states:
Consumer states that it took almost 12 days for a technician to repair the service. She states that the reason for the delay is to try and get her to upgrade to FIOS [sic], which she wishes not to have.38
Another concern raised in the customer complaints (and shared by TURN) is that copper-based phone service is more reliable than FiOS during prolonged power outages.
During a power outage, FiOS requires back-up power at the customer premises to function. For example, one customer stated that s/he wanted to maintain a landline
36 Case No. 218704 (March 2012). 37 Case No. 228780 (May 2012). 38 Case No. 256604 (January 2013).
17 copper telephone service and have FiOS installed for Internet and television, but that
“Verizon has a rule that if a home has FIOS installed for internet and television it must move the copper wire landline telephone service to FiOS telephone.” The customer’s request to the CPUC: “Copper wire landline telephone service works even during an electric power outage while FIOS service fails during an electric power outage.”39 As discussed above, another complaint from December 2013 notes that the customer desired to be returned to copper landline phone service because the fiber service did not work with
LifeAlert or a security system during power outages.40
The complaints show that it is unclear whether or not the requests to Verizon for repair of copper-based phone service that trigger customer migration are recorded as trouble tickets, and thus reflected in the data Verizon provides to the CPUC. For instance, one complaint describes a process of requesting repair, Verizon insisting on installing a
FiOS package the customer didn’t want, the customer receiving an unannounced visit from a Verizon sub-contractor and then being told that the repair was cancelled.41
Another customer called Verizon to report “terrible static” on their phone line. S/he received an e-mail and text stating Verizon would be at the home to fix the problem between 8 a.m. and noon, but Verizon did not show up as promised. At 3:20 p.m., the customer contacted Verizon and was told, “…the ticket was on hold to install Fios! I never requested or was told about fios [sic].” Another Verizon employee repaired the copper line, but told the customer that they had to get Verizon to cancel the FiOS order or they
“would lose everything he did.” That is exactly what happened. The customer and her husband contacted Verizon, were on hold for three hours, the problem was not fixed and
39 Case No. 205545 (January 2012). 40 Case No. 305339 (December 2013). 41 Case No. 209246 (February 2012)
18 they had no phone service. This was a dire situation given that the customer’s husband
“…had major open heart surgery a few months ago. this [sic] is the only line our drs [sic] have to contact him and verify appointments. Verizon is aware of this but obviously doesn’t care.”42
It is clear that customers often do not fully understand that they are being migrated to FiOS. Many of the complaints state the view that Verizon is using deceptive or coercive practices to convince customers to migrate to FiOS.43 It is also unclear whether most customers are aware of the implications of being transferred to a service that is possibly unregulated and is reliant upon backup power that may run out during prolonged power outages. TURN is concerned that customer confusion over Verizon’s customer migration practices is even more acute for customers who are not fluent in English.
B. Migration to Voice Link Will Raise Similar Concerns for Customers.
As discussed earlier, Verizon’s migration program has been expanded nationally to involve migration of copper landline phone customers to a fixed wireless service called
Voice Link in areas where FiOS has not been deployed. It is not clear when Voice Link will be offered in California. But the CPUC must be vigilant and ensure that the problems identified in customer complaints about Verizon’s forced migration practices do not make a repeat appearance when Voice Link arrives. In an interview with Communications
Daily, Verizon Senior Vice President for National Operations Support Thomas Maguire
42 Case No. 225475 (May 2012). 43 See Case No. 203887 (January, 2012), Case No. 209246 (February 2012), Case No. 213503 (March 2012), Case Nos. 2262941 and 228780 (May 2012), Case No. 239620 (September 2012), 260172 (January 2013), 267321 (March 2013) and 271319 (April 2013).
19 stated that Voice Link is aimed at migrating customers away from copper networks in areas where it does not install FiOS.
The Migration was ‘humming along’ but Verizon knew it didn’t have fiber everywhere, which led Maguire to examine alternatives for those copper customers encountering problems. ‘It dawned on me that our wireless’ networks are ‘everywhere,’ he said. ‘I started looking at ways we could then use the wireless technology.” Voice Link was then born. Then Sandy hit, he said, accelerating the process in New York.44
Verizon has stopped deploying FiOS in new areas.45 Thus, Voice Link will be targeted to areas of Verizon’s territory where FiOS was not deployed, including rural areas where a properly maintained copper telephone network is the most reliable communication option for customers, particularly during power outages. There is substantial evidence, from customer complaints, comments and information presented at the January 2012 Workshop that Verizon is not adequately maintaining its copper network, and telling customers that migration to FiOS is fait accompli. The message customers have heard from Verizon is, we have no intention of repairing or maintaining your copper-based phone service and you have no choice but to move to FiOS. For Verizon customers in rural areas, there is no fiber from Verizon and there never will be fiber from Verizon. In addition, wireless service – including fixed wireless riding on Verizon’s LTE network (i.e., Voice Link) – is not a ubiquitous option and provides inferior E911 access and reduced functionality
(discussed further in Section VI). Importantly, like FiOS, during prolonged power outages
Voice Link service will cease to function since most back-up batteries currently provide power for only four hours.
44 Communications Daily, May 13, 2013, p. 10, op. cit. 45 See, for example, “First Phase Of Verizon FiOS Build Coming To An End, Company will now focus on improving uptake in existing markets,” DSL Reports.com, January 2, 2010 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/106349
20 With respect to customer migration to both FiOS and Voice Link, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is Verizon’s purposeful failure to adequately maintain its network and perform necessary repairs that drives Verizon’s customer migration policy and unethical business practices. These actions violate Verizon’s obligations under the
PU Code, the Commission’s rules and the requirements of Verizon’s CPCN.
VI. VERIZON CUSTOMERS ARE HARMED BY FORCED MIGRATION TO FIOS OR VOICE LINK. Verizon’s practice of allowing its copper network to deteriorate and then attempting to migrate basic telephone service customers to either FiOS or Voice Link without notice, explanation or choice is harmful to the public.
FiOS is a VoIP service under PU Code § 710. Therefore, it is likely that Verizon will argue that customers who are migrated from copper-based landline service to FiOS lose many of the regulatory and universal service protections they receive as non-VoIP landline telephone service customers. The only remaining regulatory protections for FiOS phone service customers are contained in a small list of narrow exceptions, with deregulation being the rule. For example, the Commission can only respond informally to customer complaints regarding FiOS (PU Code Sec. 710.(f)); the Commission likely has limited/no authority to require Verizon to provide FiOS service at just and reasonable prices (PU Code Sec. 710 (b)) It is unclear whether customers migrated to FiOS phone service would receive the regulatory protections applied to copper-based basic phone service, and as discussed below, the Commission does not currently have the authority to require Verizon to provide more robust battery back-up power to ensure that phone and data services continue to work during lengthy power outages, courtesy of SB 1161 (PU
21 Code Sec. 710 (c)(6)).
Voice Link is a new type of fixed wireless service that is inferior to non-VoIP landline service in a number of key respects. As discussed in more detail below, the deficiencies of Voice Link compared to copper-based landline phone service are numerous. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, a storm that heavily damaged communities in Verizon’s service territory in New Jersey Barrier Islands and parts of Fire
Island in New York, Verizon attempted to replace its landline, copper-based phone service with Voice Link. Verizon subsequently filed applications with the FCC, proposing to discontinue providing domestic telecommunications service in these locations, and substitute Voice Link in its stead.46 In response to political pressure stemming from immense public dissatisfaction with Voice Link, Verizon has since indicated that it will deploy FiOS in addition to Voice Link in some parts of Fire Island.47
TURN has reviewed Verizon’s proposed tariff filings, and the pleadings and public comments filed in a proceeding before the New York Public Service Commission,48
Verizon’s FCC applications and the comments and ex partes filed in response, and
AARP’s request for an investigation in New Jersey. In reviewing Verizon’s tariff filings in New York, the New York Public Service Commission stated that Voice Link service is
“materially different” from copper-based landline service, noting that Voice Link is incompatible with fax machines, medical alert and home security monitoring systems and
46 Before the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 13-149, Comp. Pol File No. 112, WC Docket No. 13-150, Comp. Pol File No. 1115, 214 Applications of Verizon New Jersey Inc. and Verizon New York Inc. to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications Services. 47 See, for example, "Verizon Reverses Fire Island Stance, Offers Fiber Service," Bloomberg, September 10, 2013, Verizon Reverses Fire Island Stance, Offers Fiber Service 48 State of New York Public Service Commission, Case-13-C-1097 – “Tariff filing by Verizon New York to Introduce language under which Verizon could discontinue its current wireline service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole offering in the area.”
22 credit card machines. Digital Subscriber Line service (“DSL”), is not available with Voice
Link. Unlike Verizon’s landline services, Voice Link service requires the use of
mandatory 10 digit dialing within an area code. Voice Link does not allow customers to
make calls to “certain specialized area codes, such as 900 or central office codes, such as
976 or 950.” Voice Link will not allow customers to accept collect calls and calls cannot
be made to the operator by dialing “0.”49 Verizon’s Voice Link Terms of Service for New
York state that the service “is not compatible with fax machines, DVR services, credit
card machines, medical alert or other monitoring services or High Speed or DSL Internet
services.”50
In public comments to the NYPSC, Suffolk County First Responders and the
Elected Officials in 68 Municipalities raise significant concerns about the provision of 9-
1-1 service over Voice Link. They note that customer location information programmed
into a Voice Link unit becomes unreliable if the customer moves and takes the Voice Link
unit with them because there is no automatic updating of location information when a
Voice Link unit is moved. The First Responders state:
Verizon’s most recent “Revised Terms of Service” (filed June 12, 2013) has an entire section - containing five distinct disclaimers – regarding “Limitations on 911 Emergency Services.” In addition to the limitations discussed above, the Terms of Service warn the customer that “using the Service may be subject to network congestion and/or reduced routing or processing speed.”51
The Elected Officials state:
Information about a customer’s location is not updated when a customer moves
49 NYPSC Case-13-C-1097, Notice Inviting Comments, (Issued May 21, 2013), p. 2. 50 Verizon Voice Link Terms of Service, 1.b. Attached to a June 10, 2013 letter from Verizon Deputy General Counsel – New York, Joseph A. Post to Jeffrey C. Cohen, Acting Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission. 51 See NYPSC Case 13-C-0197, July 2, 2013 Comments filed by Suffolk County First Responders, p. 1-2. http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=42688#
23 and brings the Voice Link equipment along. Although the Commission described Voice Link as remaining “stationary at one location in the customer’s premises,” it is Municipalities’ understanding that there is no obstacle to consumers taking their Voice Link equipment to new residences if they choose to do so. A consumer who relocates and who brings the Voice Link equipment will be “bringing” the geographic location of the original Voice Link location erroneously to the new location. If the customer then calls E-9-1-1 from her new home, the 9-1-1 agency will see the prior customer’s location. Further exacerbating this threat to public safety is the fact that many consumers receive paperless billing, meaning that Verizon may not be aware that its consumer has re-located.
In sharp contrast with the limited capabilities of Voice Link, with wireline service, a customer’s 9-1-1 location is permanently and inalterably linked to the location to which the service is provided. Furthermore, with “conventional” mobile wireless service, a consumer’s wireless phone is programmed to transmit the user’s location of the nearest cell tower. With the more limited wireless capability of Voice Link, such information will not be communicated.52
Further, as the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, the National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates and TURN (“New Jersey DRC et. al.”) pointed out to the
FCC, because the Voice Link service does not provide a broadband connection, it also is not compatible with Video Relay services.53 Video Relay service is extremely important for members of the deaf and disabled community because it allows customers with learning disabilities to communicate using American Sign Language instead of texting.54
Allowing Verizon to forcibly migrate copper landline basic telephone service customers to Voice Link would be detrimental to public safety and therefore contrary to the Commission’s obligation to ensure that services are provided in a manner consistent
52 See NYPSC Case 13-C-0197, July 9, 2013 Corrected Comments From Elected Officials in 68 Municipalities, p. 4, emphasis in the original, footnotes omitted. 53 Before the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 13-149, Comp. Pol File No. 112, WC Docket No. 13-150, Comp. Pol File No. 1115, 214 Applications of Verizon New Jersey Inc. and Verizon New York Inc. to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications Services, Initial Comments of The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, and The Utility Reform Network, p. 11. For a description of how video relay service functions and its reliance on broadband, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/video-relay- services 54 For the FCC’s description of the importance of Video Relay Service see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/video-relay-services
24 with public safety as described in the Scoping Memo and OIR.
In addition, and very importantly, both Voice Link and FiOS rely on power supplied by the electric power grid. During a power outage both services rely on batteries at the customer premises, making both services less reliable than copper-based, non-VoIP landline service during lengthy power outages. This point was emphasized by the Suffolk
County first responders and in the comments submitted to the NYPSC by Elected Officials in 68 Municipalities. The Elected Officials stated:
Voice Link is not as reliable as is Verizon’s conventional copper-based telephone service. Except in rare instances, Verizon’s copper-based service continues to operate during power outages. Consumers’ ability to reach public safety is always essential and, during black-outs and other extreme weather conditions, arguably even more so.55
As noted above, Verizon will likely claim that pursuant to PU Code Section
710(c)(6) the Commission currently does not have the authority to require Verizon to upgrade its battery back-up either at the customer premises or network power back-up for
FiOS. Thus, when Verizon deliberately allows its copper network to deteriorate, it leaves customers little choice and customers who desire the robust level of reliability afforded by copper-based basic telephone service will lose the right to choose the service, that when properly maintained, is most likely to continually function during prolonged power outages.
As discussed below, customers in the areas of New York and New Jersey, where
Verizon is attempting to discontinue providing copper-based landline phone service and force customers to move to Voice Link, are vehemently opposed to Verizon’s proposal.
55 See NYPSC Case 13-C-0197, July 11, 2013 Corrected Comments from Elected Officials in 68 Municipalities, p. 3. http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=42688#
25 The NYPSC web site pages dedicated to Verizon’s Voice Link proposal lists over 1,700 public comments. In poring over these pages, one is hard pressed to find a single commenter who supported Verizon’s plan. The practice of deliberately allowing the regulated network to fall into disrepair and then using that as an excuse to move customers to Voice Link eliminates a competitive choice that customers value highly.
Verizon’s objective is to let its regulated copper network deteriorate to a level that is beyond repair. As the network deteriorates and customers experience problems, Verizon will try hard to push customers off of its regulated landline phone service and over to either unregulated FiOS or Voice Link, a service that is clearly inferior to copper-based landline phone service. The upshot is that customers who would rather continue to receive regulated, copper-based landline service lose that option.
VII. VERIZON’S PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA ARE PART OF A NATIONAL STRATEGY, AS EVIDENCE BY ITS ACTIONS IN NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Verizon’s actions in California are part of a national corporate pattern of failing to maintain and repair its copper network. This pattern became abundantly clear with
Verizon’s refusal to repair copper-based service in the District of Columbia (D.C.) and
Verizon's attempts to forcibly migrate customers to Voice Link following Hurricane
Sandy.
A. Verizon Forced Migration to FiOS
A recent order issued by the Public Service Commission of the District of
Columbia (PSCDC) affirms that Verizon's practice in California of refusing to repair copper-based service and using calls to repair centers as a means of migrating customers to fiber services was also implemented in D.C. Order No. 17313 was issued December 9,
26 2013, following an investigation into the reliability of Verizon's Washington, D.C. telecommunications infrastructure, initiated pursuant to a petition by the Office of People's
Counsel (OPC).56 The investigation examined key service quality issues, including whether a service degradation problem exists, whether Verizon adequately maintains the copper infrastructure in place and serving customers and the customer service training implemented for customer service representatives by Verizon D.C.57 Key allegations raised by OPC in its petition and by members of the community in comments and statements to the PSCDC were virtually identical to the issues raised by TURN in this motion - namely, Verizon deliberately let its D.C. network deteriorate and when customers requested repair, Verizon moved them over to fiber instead of repairing their copper-based phone service.58
In Order No. 17313, the PSCDC determined that there were deficiencies in
Verizon DC's maintenance, repair times, repeat trouble rate, training of technicians and customer service. The PSCDC found that Verizon DC did not fully comply with the terms of its 2008 price cap settlement agreement which requires Verizon DC to "maintain the copper infrastructure in use and serving customers."59 With respect to customer service the Order No. 1713 directed Verizon DC:
[t]o review its training materials to ensure that its customer service representatives are not making it unnecessarily difficult for copper service customers to obtain the repairs they are requesting and to make adjustments to its training, where necessary, to ensure that all customers are receiving quality service over copper
56 Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia ("PSCDC"), Formal Case No. 1090, In the Matter of the Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon Washington, DC's Telecommunications Infrastructure, Order No. 17313, Rel. December 9, 2013. 57 PSCDC, Formal Case No. 1090, Order No. 17389, February 24, 2013, para. 2. 58 See, for example, Response of the Office of People's Counsel in Opposition to the Application of Verizon, DC Inc.'s Application for Reconsideration of Order No. 17313 (PUBLIC), January 15, 2014, p. 10-13. 59 PSCDC, Order No. 17313, paras. 270, 348.
27 facilities without undue marketing pressure to change to fiber facilities or FiOS service.60
Verizon was also directed to submit a remedial plan to address service quality issues.
Verizon appealed the order. In rejecting Verizon's contention that the commission erred, the PSCDC stated, "there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that Verizon DC is not maintaining the copper network."61 Furthermore, the
PSCDC rejected Verizon's contention that the requirement to review and potentially adjust training scripts was unsupported by record evidence.62 The PSCDC forcefully rejected that contention:
However, the Commission's directives to Verizon DC regarding its customer service representative training materials address issues that are related to the maintenance of the copper infrastructure for those customers who are still receiving services over copper facilities. Through these directives, the Commission seeks to ensure that customers who have copper service that needs to be repaired are not directed to other services in lieu of having their copper service repaired.63
B. Forced Migration to Voice Link
Documents filed at the New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”), the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities (“New Jersey BPU”) and the Federal Communications
Commission demonstrate that Verizon is using Sandy as an opportunity to implement its corporate strategy of allowing the copper to deteriorate, refusing to repair its infrastructure, and attempting to force customers to migrate to Voice Link.
60 PSCDC, Formal Case No. 1090, Order No. 17389, op. cit., paras. 41, 42. 61 PSCDC, Order No.17389, op. cit. para. 32. 62 Id., para 35. 63 Id., para. 42.
28 In the aftermath of Sandy, Verizon failed to repair its facilities for several months, and then approached the NYPSC proposing to replace its damaged copper facilities with
Voice Link wireless service, and requesting expedited approval and a waiver of newspaper publication so that it could restore telephone service on Fire Island “as rapidly as possible.”64 And as noted above, Verizon has filed an application at the Federal
Communications Commission seeking authority to discontinue traditional landline service in these areas, rather than rebuild the infrastructure.65 However, the New York Attorney
General’s office (“NY AG”) and CWA District 1 have provided evidence that Verizon is violating the terms of a New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”) Order granting limited authority for Verizon to offer Voice Link only in areas where landlines were lost due to Sandy. The NY AG and CWA District 1 have shown that Verizon is telling customers in other rural areas of New York State not impacted by Sandy that Verizon will not repair landline facilities and, instead, customers will be migrated to Voice Link.66 The
NY AG has argued that the circumstances cited by Verizon as a reason to replace copper facilities with Voice Link is a situation of Verizon’s own making:
It is clear that Verizon is leveraging the storm damage from Sandy as part of its long-term strategy to abandon its copper networks by substituting Voice Link for POTS service on western Fire Island and forcing customers to accept wireless Voice Link wherever it does not build FiOS. Verizon’s failure to make prompt repairs to its Fire Island facilities during the seven months following Sandy left the
64 May 3, 2013 Verizon tariff filing, cover letter to Jeffrey Cohen, Acting Secretary, NYPSC, from Keefe B. Clemons, Verizon General Counsel - Northeast Region. 65 Before the Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Section 63.71 Application of Verizon New York Inc. and Verizon New Jersey Inc. For Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended To Discontinue Provision of Service, Section 63.71, Application of Verizon New York Inc. and Verizon New Jersey Inc., WC Docket No. 13-149 Comp.-Pol File No. 1112 and WC Docket No. 13-150 Comp. Pol File No. 1115, Filed/Accepted June 7, 2013. 66 See, State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, Emergency Petition of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman for an Order Preventing Verizon From Illegally Installing Voice Link Service in Violation of Its Tariff and the Commission’s May 16, 2013 Order.
29 Commission little choice but to provide temporary approval of Voice Link so that customers would have some form of telephone service during the 2013 summer beach season. However, this “temporary approval” should not be expanded to allow Verizon to avoid its ILEC obligations permanently, on Fire Island or anywhere else in New York.67
Similarly, with respect to the New Jersey barrier islands, as New Jersey DRC et. al. documented in comments to the FCC, other utilities serving the area – including cable companies - suffered extensive damage to infrastructure during Hurricane Sandy. Yet they repaired their networks and restored service. And, “[o]nly Verizon, without evidentiary support, is seeking to jettison its obligations to provide safe, proper and adequate service to the public.”68 Moreover, XO Communications has submitted evidence to the FCC demonstrating that Verizon misrepresented the facts regarding the extent to which copper plant in significant buildings located in Manhattan was damaged beyond repair by the hurricane. In fact, according to XO, much of the plant was still functional and certainly capable of being repaired, and Verizon has attempted to use Sandy as a pretext to eliminate its provision of copper-based services essential for competitors (and their customers) and replace the plant with fiber that is not subject to competitive requirements that apply to copper facilities.69 All of these pieces put together point to one thing: Verizon is trying to use the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy as a means of
67 NYPSC CASE 13-C-0197, Comments of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, July 2, 2013, p. 10-11. 68 Initial Comments of New Jersey DRC et. al. to the FCC, p. 21 and Attachment A. 69 Before the Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of: Petition of BellSouth Corporation for Special Temporary Authority and Waiver To Support Disaster Planning and Response, Petition of Verizon for Special Temporary Authority and Waiver To Support Disaster Planning and Response, Petition of Qwest Communications International Inc. for Special Temporary Authority and Waiver To Support Disaster Planning and Response (WC Docket No. 06-63), and Petitions for Rulemaking and Clarification Regarding the Commission’s Rules Applicable to Retirement of Copper Loops and Copper Subloops (RM-11358), XO Communications Services, LLC’s Objection to Verizon’s Invocation of the Limited Waiver and Special Temporary Authority Granted in the Order Issued In the Matter of Petition of BellSouth Corporation for Special Temporary Authority and Waiver To Support Disaster Planning and Response and Request for a Cease and Desist Order, July 1, 2013.
30 furthering its ambition to “kill the copper” and avoid its legal obligation to properly maintain and repair its network.
The behavior of Verizon in D.C., New York and New Jersey is directly related to the situation in California because Verizon is employing similar practices here, as explained in Section IV and V. In California, D.C. and in the areas damaged by Sandy, it is clear that Verizon is implementing its national corporate objective of deliberately allowing its regulated copper network to deteriorate and using the resulting service problems to force customers to migrate to other services that are either not regulated or are less functional than copper-based voice phone service. The Commission must take immediate action to protect the interests of Verizon’s California customers and prevent further degradation of Verizon’s copper-based landline network.
VIII. THE COMMISSION SHOULD IMMEDIATELY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF VERIZON’S CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF VERIZON’S NETWORK.
Verizon’s failure to properly maintain its network and repair service as requested by its customers is deeply harmful to the public interest. TURN urges the Commission to take immediate steps to prevent further deterioration of Verizon’s network and to protect the interests of Verizon customers.
TURN requests that the Commission take the following actions.
•The Commission should issue an order requiring Verizon to: 1) repair the service of copper-based landline telephone service customers who contact the repair center; 2) restore copper-based service to customers who wished to retain it but were migrated to FiOS or Voice Link; and 3) cease the deceptive and misleading marketing practices reported by
31 Verizon customers in their complaints to the Commission. (See Attachment 1 and Section V of this motion.)
•The Commission should investigate whether, and to what extent, Verizon’s customer migration practices and failure to maintain the copper network in certain communities take unfair advantage of senior citizens, customers on low incomes and limited English speaking populations.
•The Commission should require Verizon to provide data, by location, on the number of customers who have been migrated and where the data indicates even minor concentrations of customer migrations, those areas should be included in the examination into the adequacy of Verizon’s network maintenance and investment described in the September 24, 2012 Scoping Memo.
•The Commission should determine whether a customer call to Verizon's repair line results in Verizon generating a trouble ticket when the customer is voluntarily or involuntarily migrated. There are indications in the customer complaints that trouble tickets may not be generated in all instances. If this is the case, the data reported by Verizon pursuant to Commission service quality reporting requirements may be misleading and may understate Verizon service quality problems.
•The Commission should require Verizon to provide proof that customers who have been migrated to FiOS “receive the same voice service at the exact same monthly price” and continue to be “subject to the same regulatory oversight as the customer’s previous copper-based service” as previously represented to the Commission by Verizon.70
•Once the Commission issues the order for Verizon to cease and desist its misleading marketing practices, Verizon should be required to submit to the Commission all information provided to customers pertaining to customer migration and all training material, customer representative scripts, technician scripts and other directions to Verizon employees regarding its copper repair and customer migration practices.
•The Commission should verify whether Verizon has complied with the requirements of D.10-01-026 and provided customers migrated to FiOS or Voice Link with mandated information on back-up power requirements for these services to function during power outages.
70 R.11-12-001, Reply Declaration of Thomas Maguire for Verizon California, March 12, 2012, para. 8. (“Maguire Declaration”).
32 •The Commission should move promptly to prevent further unlawful deterioration of Verizon’s network. In accordance with the Scoping Memo in this docket, the Commission should move as quickly as possible to fully investigate whether Verizon (and AT&T) is adequately maintaining it’s copper network. This requires issuance of the RFP as described in the September 24, 2012 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling and Scoping Memo. In preparing the RFP, the Commission should ensure that the scope of the investigation encompasses the issues raised in this motion.
•As part of the Commission’s investigation, Verizon should be required to provide the CPUC with data regarding the number of employees transferred to Voice Link and hired to provide Voice Link. Verizon should be required to provide CPUC with data regarding the expenditures for customer migration and investment in Voice Link so that the Commission can compare the resources Verizon has devoted to migrating customers with the resources Verizon has devoted to maintaining its copper-based basic telephone service.
IX. CONCLUSION The Commission has an obligation to ensure that carriers such as Verizon maintain adequate facilities and provide reliable service. It is clear that Verizon is failing to adequately maintain its network and using deceptive practices in the course of migrating customers away from their preferred basic telephone service. The Commission should immediately take the actions recommended by TURN to prevent further degradation of
Verizon’s network and protect the interests of Verizon’s customers
Dated: March 17, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Regina Costa
Regina Costa Telecommunications Research Director
33 Attachment 1 Complaints Provided to TURN by the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch, January 29, 2014 YEAR!2012 Month Case!Number Comment Complaint!/!Concern:!I!wish!to!maintain!my!landline!copper!wire!telephone! January 205545 service!and!get!FIOS!installed!in!my!home!for!internet!and!television.!I!have!3! telephone!lines!at!the!residence,!(805)!xxxRxxxx,!(805)!xxxRxxxx!and!(805)!xxxR Utility!Comment:!Verizon!has!a!rule!that!if!a!home!has!FIOS!installed!for!internet! and!television!it!must!move!the!copper!wire!landline!telephone!service!to!FIOS! Request!of!CPUC:!Copper!wire!landline!telephone!service!works!even!during!an! electric!power!outage!while!FIOS!service!fails!during!an!electric!power!outage.! FIOS!is!an!ipRbased!phone!service!that!will!fail!if!the!internet!fails.!One!of!my! telephones!is!rotary!dial!(pulse).!FIOS!telephone!service!does!not!support!rotary! (pulse)!dialing.!Landline!allows!seven!digit!dialing!for!local!calls!while!FIOS! Utility!Name:!Verizon
Complaint!/!Concern:!our!condo!complex!changed!to!fios!for!cable!only!it!is!a! bulk!acc.!i!had!an!existing!land!line!phone!and!internet!serv!thru!verizon!on!the! copper!side.!they!told!me!i!had!to!convert!to!fios!for!these!services!as!they! would!no!longer!be!maintaining!the!copper!lines.!i!was!only!paying!45!monthly! 203887 to!verizon!prior,!fios!quoted!me!89.99!for!same!serice.!i!was!told!!their!is!no! reason!why!i!couldnt!keep!my!copper!line!services!i!had!before!with!verizon! other!then!they!have!just!decided!in!my!complex!to!not!allow!it!.!!Im!not!sure! what!verizon!is!doing!in!my!community!is!even!legal.!thanks!for!your!attention! Utility!Comment:!verizon!would!only!say!that!in!my!community!they!would!no! longer!be!maintaining!the!copper!lines,!they!tried!to!tell!me!that!my!hoa!had! signed!up!to!convert!all!cable,!phone!and!internet!services!to!be!fios.!which!the! board!denies,!they!only!signed!up!to!convert!the!cable!to!fios,!everything!else! was!an!individual!choice!as!to!what!services!are!offered!in!our!area.!also!when!i! told!verizon!that!i!wouldnt!switch!to!fiosthey!didnt!inform!me!iwould!loose!my! ability!to!have!the!same!phone!#!that!i!have!had!for!9!years!,!i!was!told!that!i! have!a!legal!right!to!maintain!my!same!phone!#!when!i!change!phone!company! Request!of!CPUC:!look!into!what!is!going!on!with!the!fios!service!practices!in!my! community,!our!board!is!having!daily!complaints!from!shareholders!who!feel! they!are!being!railroaded!into!switching!everything!to!fios!at!a!big!increase!in! Utility!Comment:!My!wife!called!for!me!and!was!put!on!hold,!transferred! multiple!times!and!spent!a!total!of!over!an!hour!and!a!half!and!no!one!helped! her.!Miraculously!somehow!the!modem!turned!back!on!and!have!been!able!to! use!today.!We!honestly!think!Verizon!is!flipping!switches!or!something!and!feel! 205553 they!need!to!be!investigated.!The!internet!is!only!on!intermitently.!They!have! also!been!hounding!us!weekly!to!switch!to!FIOS.!Apparently!we!have!no!choice! as!what!we!currently!have!does!not!work,!nor!does!the!company!want!to! resolve!their!issues.!That!is!why!we!are!filing!a!formal!complaint. Request!of!CPUC:!We!would!like!for!the!CPUC!to!review!the!Verizon!territory! (open!it!up!so!it!is!not!territorial)!and!allow!customers!who!are!VERY!dissatisfied! with!their!service!to!be!able!to!choose!another!service!other!than!the!cable! company!in!our!area.!This!has!been!ongoing!for!years!and!sooooo!tired!of!it.!Am! actually!contemplating!seeking!legal!service!counsel!on!t Complaint!/!Concern:!Our!home!phone!goes!out!every!time!it!rains.!In!the!7!1/2! years!weve!lived!in!this!house,!weve!complained!about!this!about!10!times!and! had!at!least!4!service!calls.!The!last!Verizon!tech!explained!that!the!equipment! or!lines!in!our!neighborhood!are!old!and!that!the!only!way!to!fix!the!problem! permanently!is!to!upgrade!to!Fios.!Each!time!the!phone!is!out!for!about!a!week.! 205550 I!have!great!trouble!even!reporting!the!problem!(long!hold!times!on!the!phone,! Verizon!troubleshooting!website!wont!even!recognize!the!phone!#!as!a!Verizon! phone!#,!live!chat!person!says!he!cant!help!with!service!issues,!etc!etc!etc.)!The! last!live!chat!person!suggested!I!go!next!door!to!a!neighbors!house!to!call! Verizon!to!report!the!problem.!Pretty!funny.!I!attached!a!Word!doc!with!screen! shots!of!the!transcript!of!the!last!live!chat.!(Where!Verizon!web!site!said!I!could! Utility!Comment:!They!have!no!explanation. Request!of!CPUC:!I!would!like!Verizon!to!fix!to!lines!or!equipment!that!provides! our!phone!service!so!that!we!wont!be!without!a!home!phone!for!long!stretches! throughout!the!winter. January!=!4
February 209246 Complaint!/!Concern:!Verizon!refuses!to!repair!copper!line!telephone! Utility!Comment:!They!insist!to!change!over!to!FIOS!package!with!444!long! distance!service. Request!of!CPUC:!Remind!them!that!customers!need!not!be!bullied!around!and! that!they!are!thus!are!performing!unethical!practices!subject!to!fines. Utility!Name:!Verizon Complaint!/!Concern:!Bad!telephone!connection!reported!to!Verizon!at!1R888R 558R1565!on!February!2,!2012.!In!spite!of!repeated!complaints,!promised!repair! cancelations!and!reneged!repair!schedules!by!Verizon,!I!am!still!having! Utility!Comment:!They!insist!on!installing!a!444!long!distance!FIOS!package!that!I! dont!need!which!will!ultimately!be!more!expensive!than!the!simple!installation! of!a!watertight!seal!at!the!present!Copper!wire!connection!which!will!solve!the! present!condition!as!explained!to!me!by!their!Fiber!Network!Field!Tech.!I!placed! numerous!calls!with!Verizon!including!calls!into!a!Missouri!Office!but!either!got! disconnected,!transferred!to!different!departments!or!plainly!ignored.!I!have! had!an!unannounced!visit!from!their!subcontractor!ERLink.!They!wanted!to!dig! and!trench!from!the!side!walk!next!to!a!LIVE!gas!line!without!city!permit.!I! contacted!Cerritos!City!Hall!and!their!engineer!Fred!was!very!concerned!about! that!and!advised!me!not!to!allow!them!to!proceed.!The!crew!left!and!Verizon! Request!of!CPUC:!Fine!Verizon!for!coercion,!strong!arm!and!unethical!practices! and!force!them!to!serve!their!customers!appropriately,!deliver!reliable!service! without!hassling!the!customer!and!adjust!their!bill!to!compensate!for!non! provided!daily!service.!I!should!not!do!their!scheduling!and!planning!nor!should!I! provide!them!with!quality!assurance!and!city!or!other!code!and!regulatory! requirements.!I!have!not!been!contacted!by!any!Verizon!representative!to! explain!the!scope!of!the!work!involved!and!who!is!responsible!for!the!different! construction!phases.!I!have!therefore!canceled!all!services!with!Verizon!and! Complaint!/!Concern:!On!April!12!2012!I!called!Verizon!customer!service!in!order to!transfer!my!landline!service!as!we!are!moving!across!town!at!the!end!of!this! month.!!I!was!then!informed!that!Verizon!starting!this!month!will!no!longer! 208333 provide!just!landline!service!and!you!also!need!to!purchase!their!Fios!internet! also.!!I!have!been!on!the!Lifeline!program!for!over!7!years!and!now!they!are! forcing!me!to!get!their!internet!as!well.!!I!can!not!afford!Fios.!!This!is!wrong!and! they!need!to!stop!this!as!the!apartment!we!are!moving!to!only!has!Verizon!as!a! Utility!Comment:!They!said!there!is!nothing!they!can!do. Request!of!CPUC:!To!inform/regulate!Verizon!that!low!income!families!need! Lifeline!so!in!case!of!emergencies!we!have!a!way!to!call!for!help.!!I!would!think! this!practice!goes!against!with!what!Verizon!signed!in!order!to!be!able!to!have! Lifeline.!!Once!again!another!corporation!trying!to!make!money!from!the!poor.
February!=!2
Complaint!/!Concern:!I!received!a!letter!that!said!that!"There!have!been!landline! service!issues!in!your!area!recently!and!we!want!to!apologize!if!you!have!been! inconvenienced.!Network!reliability!and!your!experience!as!a!Verizon!customer! are!important,!and!thats!why!Verizon!needs!to!transition!your!service!to!the! March 213503 most!advanced!technology!availableRRfiber!optics."!!When!I!called!to!schedule!an! appointment,!as!the!letter!said,!I!find!that!they!basically!have!lied!on!the!letter! and!just!was!to!put!fiber!optics!in,!even!though!I!do!not!want!to!get!Fios.!!I!dont! have!to!subscribe!to!it!but!then!again,!why!would!I!want!to!have!it!installed!if!I! Utility!Comment:!Just!that!I!didnt!have!to!get!Fios,!they!just!wanted!to!install!the equipment!so!that!it!was!there!should!I!change!my!mind!in!the!future. Request!of!CPUC:!Have!them!cease!and!desist!from!sending!misleading!letters! that!look!like!they!want!to!upgrade!my!existing!service!to!serve!me!better
Complaint!/!Concern:!Verizon!has!suspended!my!grandmothers!telephone! service!due!to!the!fact!that!she!has!not!upgraded!to!their!FiOs!service.!She!pays! 214029 her!bills!on!time!and!just!does!not!wish!to!have!this!service.!She!is!an!elderly! woman!and!does!not!wish!to!be!forced!into!having!something!that!is!one,!falsely represented!and!two,!something!she!does!not!require. Utility!Comment:!It!is!not!a!true!FiOs!system!and!it!is!what!is!called!fiber!to!the! source.!This!is!not!a!true!fiber!optics!system.!It!is!being!falsely!advertised!as! such.!Unless!they!rewire!her!entire!home,!it!is!not!what!they!are!claiming.!They! said!unfortunately!she!will!be!without!service!unless!she!converts. Request!of!CPUC:!Dont!let!Verizon!force!customers!into!taking!a!service!that!is! not!needed.!Make!sure!they!provide!the!services!that!were!paid!for!without!
Consumer!Writes:!"On!April!12!2012!I!called!Verizon!customer!service!in!order! to!transfer!my!landline!service!as!we!are!moving!across!town!at!the!end!of!this! month.!!I!was!then!informed!that!Verizon!starting!this!month!will!no!longer! 218704 provide!just!landline!service!and!you!also!need!to!purchase!their!Fios!internet! also.!!I!have!been!on!the!Lifeline!program!for!over!7!years!and!now!they!are! forcing!me!to!get!their!internet!as!well.!!I!can!not!afford!Fios.!!This!is!wrong!and! they!need!to!stop!this!as!the!apartment!we!are!moving!to!only!has!Verizon!as!a! Utility!Comment:!They!said!there!is!nothing!they!can!do. Request!of!CPUC:!To!inform/regulate!Verizon!that!low!income!families!need! Lifeline!so!in!case!of!emergencies!we!have!a!way!to!call!for!help.!!I!would!think! this!practice!goes!against!with!what!Verizon!signed!in!order!to!be!able!to!have! Lifeline.!!Once!again!another!corporation!trying!to!make!money!from!the!poor. March!=!3
April!=!0 Complaint!/!Concern:!I!called!repair!because!my!phone!had!terrible!static.!Appt.! sched.!for!Sat.!5/26.!i!got!an!email!and!text!stating!they!would!be!at!my!home!to fix!the!problem!between!8Rnoon.!no!show,!at!3:20pm!i!called,!ticket!was!on!hold to!install!Fios!!I!never!requested!or!was!told!about!fios.!This!a.m.!someone!came! out,!fixed!the!statis,!restored!my!old!copper!line!to!work!but!said!i!had!to!get! May 225475 Verizon!to!cacnel!the!fios!order!or!id!loose!everything!he!did.!This!morning!i! called!the!number!that!was!provided!to!me!by!the!verizon!repair!guy,!i!held!for!2 hours!and!my!husband!held!for!1!hour!while!they!supposedly!fixed!the!problem,! not!fixed,!no!phone!at!all!now!!!Tonight,!I!held!again!and!kept!getting!switched! from!one!dept!to!the!next,!talked!to!someone!then!get!disconnected.!We!keep! getting!the!run!around,!nothing!fixed,!they!had!my!call!back!number!and!no!one! Utility!Comment:!see!above,!no!help,!they!keep!blamiing!it!on!differenct!dept.s! within!verizon!but!that!doesnt!get!my!phone!fixed.!my!home!line!714RxxxRxxxx!is! Request!of!CPUC:!please!contact!verizon!and!have!them!fix!my!home!line!714R xxxRxxxx!!!!i!dont!know!where!else!to!turn.!my!husband!had!major!open!heart! surgery!a!few!months!ago.!!this!is!the!only!line!our!drs!have!to!contact!him!and! verify!appts.!verizon!is!aware!of!this!but!obviously!doesnt!care!! May!=!1
consumer!is!seeking!to!have!verizon!cease!solicitation!of!fios!and!to! June 226294 correct/assure!quality!of!serviceR
227745 Complaint!/!Concern:!My!phone!and!internet!will!be!converted!to!FIOS!service. Utility!Comment:!That!this!is!"Forced!Migration"!and!if!I!do!not!accept!I!will!be! disconnected!and!must!find!another!service!provider. Request!of!CPUC:!Stop!it. Utility!Name:!Verizon
A!person!named!xxxxx!from!Verizon!is!threatening!that!if!we!dont!switch!over!to! 228780 digital!and!get!rid!of!copper!that!their!response!time!for!fixing!any!phone! problems!will!go!from!1!to!two!days!too!two!weeks. I!assume!they!must!be!doing!this!with!all!businesses.!!I!thought!the!Public!Utility! Commission!should!know!that!Verizon!is!trying!to!pressure!their!customers!into! making!a!change!based!on!withholding!repair!services!for!two!weeks. Since!they!have!a!monopoly!on!local!phone!service!this!seems!to!be!against! public!policy!and!not!in!the!best!interest!for!consumer!protection.
June!=!3 July!=!0 August!=!0
consumer!is!told!they!must!migrate!to!fios!or!the!service!they!have!will!remain! impairedR
Complaint!/!Concern:!I!got!this!letter!from!Margaret!Serjak,!California!Region! President!of!Verizon!telling!us!that!we!need!to!transition!our!existing!service!to! their!fiber!optics!(FIOS)!to!resolve!the!landline!service!issues!in!your!area.!!This! transition!will!be!no!charge!to!us!and!we!keep!our!current!service!at!the!same! September 239620 rate!by!calling!their!representative. Utility!Comment:!I!called!this!number!877R505R5190!today!(9/3/12)!and!spoke!to Steve.!!According!to!him,!all!they!are!going!to!do!is!insert!this!fiber!optics!line!to! our!current!line!but!our!current!service!will!not!get!connected!to!it!if!we!elect!to! keep!it.!!The!only!time!we!will!get!connected!is!when!we!switch!to!FIOS. Request!of!CPUC:!I!think!this!is!a!classic!bait!and!switch!practice;!the!letter!and! their!representative!are!telling!us!two!different!things.!!Ive!been!having!this!on! going!issue!with!Verizon!since!we!moved!in!this!area!in!2007!just!because!I!dont! September!=!1 October!=!0
Consumer!Writes:!"!My!concern!is!that!Verizon!is!committing!fraud!by!saying! that!certain!services!are!"not!available"!in!certain!areas,!even!though!those! services!clearly!already!exist.!!I!currently!have!my!copper!wire!home!phone! service!and!DSL!Internet!Service!with!Verizon.!!I!wanted!to!upgrade!my!DSL! speed!from!the!current!0.5R1.0!Mbps!speed!to!the!higher!1.5R15!Mbps.!!Yet! when!I!went!to!their!web!site!to!do!this,!they!said!this!service!was!"not! available"!at!any!speed.!!How!can!it!be!"not!available"!if!I!already!have!this! service?!!Further,!I!found!that!my!telephone!service!as!I!have!it!now!was!no! longer!"available".!!The!technology!and!infrastructure!for!the!service!I!want!is!in! November 251251 place.!!They!just!dont!want!to!do!it!and!fraudulently!state!that!its!"not!available" Utility!Comment:!They!told!me!very!simply!(through!a!web!chat)!that!only!the! services!listed!on!their!web!site!for!my!address!were!the!only!services!that!were! "available"!(regardless!of!the!fact!that!these!services!are!alreay!being!delivered! to!my!address).!!They!said!that!if!I!wanted!to!upgrade!or!change!any!of!the! services!I!currently!have,!I!would!need!to!upgrade!to!their!FiOS!system,!which! would!be!much!more!expensive. Request!of!CPUC:!Have!them!admit!their!fraud,!and!force!them!to!continue! making!available!the!services!that!they!clearly!already!have!in!place.!!If!a!service! November!=!1 December!!=!0
TOTAL!=!15 YEAR!2013 Month Case!Number Comment Complaint!/!Concern:!Verizon!is!refusing!to!connect!a!home!phone!line!to!my! existing!copper!lines!coming!to!my!proporty!(Plain!Old!Telephone!Service,!POTS),! they!will!only!offer!phone!service!through!their!Fios!fiber!optic!system.!!The!initial! order!was!placed!January!7!and!after!much!discussion!I!was!told!at!that!time!that! JAN they!would!connect!through!the!copper!lines!as!I!insisted!on!this.!!Since!that!initial! order!they!have!sent!3!different!service!techs!that!only!work!with!the!Fios!system,! not!the!original!copper!lines.!In!the!last!two!weeks!I!have!talked!with!37!different! Verizon!people!and!spent!over!28!1/2!hours!on!the!phone!with!them!trying!to! 258489 resolve!this. Utility!Comment:!I!have!been!told!so!many!different!things!by!so!many!different! people!that!I!have!lost!track.!!The!latest!is!that!they!will!only!connect!a!phone! service!through!the!Fios!fiber!optic!system,!even!though!the!original!copper!wires! still!come!to!my!house!and!are!live,!i.e.!they!have!a!voltage.!!All!three!of!the! Verizon!Fios!techs!that!have!been!here!have!told!me!that!the!copper!lines!can!be! used!but!Verizon!is!trying!to!remove!them!to!eliminate!options/competition!by! controlling!everything!through!the!Fios!network. Request!of!CPUC:!Help!me!to!get!the!phone!service!connected!through!the!original! copper!lines.
Complaint!/!Concern:!My!phone!line!for!alarm!service!went!dead!intermittently!one! day!causing!the!alarm!to!beep!on!and!off,!so!I!called!Verizon!Repair.!I!was! forwarded!to!a!Dept!that!tried!to!sell!me!upgraded!service.!I!told!them!I!was!not! interested.!I!scheduled!a!Repair!Tech!to!come!out.!No!one!showed.!Today!Verizon! tried!to!convert!my!phone!to!FIOS!with!a!phony!service!request.!My!son!is!very!sick! after!surgery.!I!NEVER!ORDERED!A!PHONE!UPGRADE.!I!learned!that!someone!had! 260172 falsified!records!at!Verizon!stating!that!I!called!repeatedly!about!trouble!on!line.!In! 15+!years!I!have!never!reported!trouble.!Verizon!is!falsifying!reports!as!an!excuse!to! upgrade!service.!They!are!intentionally!doctoring!records!and!causing!problems!to! line!to!justify!upgrade!regardless!of!timing!or!problems.!If!not!home!today!Verizon! would!have!changed!my!phone!service!without!permission,!disrupting!my!phone! and!internet.!They!admit!my!internet!modem/router!wouldnt!have!functioned!and! my!phone!system!would!not!have!operated. Utility!Comment:!They!have!done!absolutely!nothing! Request!of!CPUC:!To!investigate!the!practices!at!Verizon!to!coerce!customers!to! upgrade!to!FIOS!by!falsifying!service!reports!and!intentionally!causing!problems!to! lines.!As!well!as!frauduenlty!scheduling!service!upgrades!without!the!consent!or! knowledge!of!the!customer.!These!actions!are!outrageous!and!quite!likely!illegal.
Received!consumer's!complaint!that!service!was!out!for!12!days.!Consumer!states! that!it!took!almost!12!days!for!a!techinician!to!repair!the!service.!She!states!that!! 256604 the!reason!for!the!delay!is!to!try!and!get!her!to!upgrade!to!FIOS,!which!she!wishes! not!to!have.!!She!stated!that!due!to!the!outage!!this!caused!for!her!router!to!be! destroyed.!Please!see!letter!attached. Please!investigate,!contact!consumer!and!respond!to!the!CPUC!with!resolution.
January!=!3
Consumer!contacted!the!CPUC!Public!Advisors!Office!about!a!matter!with!Verizon.! He!states!the!jacks!in!his!apartment!had!been!“dismantled”!and!made!inoperable! by!Verizon!in!order!to!install!FIOS.!He!says!that!he!wants!to!keep!the!copper!wiring! Feb 263807 and!did!not!order!phone!or!internet!service!only!CABLE.!He!was!told!by!the! technician!that!he!could!not!be!switched!back.!He!is!adamant!about!keeping!his! service!analog!as!VoIP!is!not!a!regulated!service FEB!=!1
Complaint!/!Concern:!I!WANT!TO!MAKE!THIS!CLEAR!THAT!THIS!IS!AN!ISSUE!OF! TELEPHONE!AND!DSL!SERVICE!OVER!COPPER!LINES!FOR!WHICH!THE!PUC!HAS! JURISDICTION.!!I!have!had!copper!based!phone!line!and/or!DSL!services!with! Verizon!from!2006!to!3/12/13.!On!3/12/13,!I!ordered!new!services!from!Verizon.! Verizon!came!out!the!same!day!to!install!the!new!services.!At!the!time,!I!did!not! know!that!Verizon!removed!my!copper!phone!lines!without!my!!knowledge!when!I! March 267321 requested!additional!services.!I!was!not!made!aware!that!they!would!be!doing!this! and!would!not!have!agreed!to!it.!The!advertisements!from!Verizon!state!that!if!I!am! unhappy,!I!can!cancel!services!anytime.!!I!am!unhappy!with!my!new!services!and! called!Verizon!today!3/18/13!to!cancel!services!and!get!my!old!services!back! (copper!land!line!and!DSL).!They!told!me!that!once!I!upgraded!services!I!cannot!go! back!because!it!was!too!costly!for!Verizon. Utility!Comment:!Verizon!told!me!there!was!no!going!back!to!my!old!services,!that! my!copper!lines!were!pulled!from!my!house!when!I!added!services.!(I!looked! outside!and!my!copper!lines!are!still!there)!!Verizon!stated!that!they!will!not! convert!customers!back!once!this!change!was!made!as!they!are!migrating!people! and!it!was!too!costly!for!Verizon!to!put!back!my!previous!services.!This!is!not! reasonable!or!fair.!If!I!am!unhappy!with!the!service,!I!can!cancel!anytime!and!I! should!be!able!to!go!back!to!how!things!were.!We!had!an!internet!outage!last!night! and!I!was!unable!to!use!the!telephone.!If!this!was!an!emergency,!we!would!have! Request!of!CPUC:!I!never!authorized!Verizon!to!REMOVE!my!copper!lines,!only!to! add!services.!I!am!unhappy!with!the!new!services!and!want!my!old!services!put! back.!This!is!not!impossible,!just!"costly"!according!to!Verizon.!This!is!fraud.!They! advertise!that!if!you!are!unhappy!with!the!services!you!can!cancel!anytime.! However,!they!do!not!advise!you!that!if!you!cancel,!you!will!not!be!able!to!get!your! old!services!back,!nor!will!you!ever!be!able!to!obtain!services!from!anyone!else.!I! WANT!MY!ORIGINAL!COPPER!LAND!LINE!AND!DSL!REINSTALLED. Complaint!/!Concern:!My!telephone!has!been!out!of!order!since!early!Dec.!!They! sent!out!techs!to!fix!it!and!it!would!work!for!a!few!days.!!Finally!one!tech!said!it!was! unfixable.!!They!arranged!for!my!service!to!be!moved!to!the!fiber!optic!Vios!service.! They!placed!conduit!to!my!house!and!said!the!tech!would!come!Jan.11.!!They!had! 264765 to!cancel!the!appt.!and!said!some!one!would!call!me.!!They!have!never!called!me.!!I! have!called!them!and!made!appt.s!and!the!techs!either!do!not!show!up!or!they!are! the!wrong!type!and!can!not!install!my!service.!!The!bills!come!regularly!though.!!I! had!my!service!disconnected!today!because!I!cant!spend!hours!on!the!phone!with! them!every!week.!!My!people!in!my!neighborhood!have!this!problem.!!Thank!you. Utility!Comment:!See!above. Request!of!CPUC:!Fine!them!heavily. Make!them!come!out!and!install!my!service. A!personal!apology!from!CEO!Lowell!C.!McAdam. March!=!2
CONSUMER!VERY!UPSET!THAT!VERIZON!IS!MARKETING!"FIOS"!TO!CONSUMER'S!IN! April 271319 AN!UNETHICAL!MANNER.!!THIS!INCLUDES: RMISREPRESENTING!!/!DISGUISING!THE!REAL!REASON!FOR!MARKETING!CALL,! INSTEAD!STATING!IT!WAS!ABOUT!A!"ROUTINE!MAINTENANCE!/!REPAIR!ISSUE; RNO!CHANGE!TO!CONSUMER'S!SERVICE; RDIGGING!A!TRENCH!ON!THE!CONSUMER'S!PROPERTY; RDRILLED!HOLES!INTO!THE!SIDE!OF!CONSUMER'S!HOME!AND!RUNNING!A!THICK! COIL!UP!THE!SIDE!OF!HOME; RUTILIZING!CONSUMER'S!WATER!AND!WATER!HOSE!WITHOUT!PERMISSION; RNO!COST!TO!CONSUMER; ***CONSUMER!SEEKS!COMPENSATION!FOR!WATER!THEFT,!LOSS!OF!DESTROYED! PLANT,!REMOVAL!OF!VERIZON!CABLE!ON!THEIR!GARAGE,!COMPLETE!RESTORATION! OF!PROPERTY!TO!ORIGINAL!CONDITION!AND!COMPENSATION!FOR!LOST!WAGES.!! LASTLY,!CONSUMER!WANTS!VERIZON!TO!CEASE!AND!DESIST!IN!IT'S!UNETHICAL! TACTICS!TO!FORCE!CONSUMER'S!TO!ACCEPT!FIOS!SERVICE****
Complaint!/!Concern:!Phone!company!changed!my!phone!to!a!digital!VOIP!service! 269927 without!my!consent!and!without!informing!me!and!will!not!correct!their!error. Utility!Comment:!"Cannot!go!back"!to!previous!phone!service. Request!of!CPUC:!Force!them!to!reinstate!my!previous!phone!service.!Cite!them!for! changing!phone!service!without!consent!or!notification!and!refusing!to!correct!their! mistake.
consumer!alledges!that!Verizon!did!not!specifically!say!they!were!changing!lines!to! "FIOS"!but!that!only!new!lines!were!needed!to!improve!transmission,!and!she! 271319 NEVER!requested!nor!ordered!this!service,!regardless!what!Verizon!claims;!rather! thought!she!was!simply!accomodating!them!to!replace!new!lines!only!at!their! expense!(maintenance,!etc.,)!which!is!what!they!stated!was!necessary.!! April!=!3 Complaint!/!Concern:!Verizon!operates!our!telephone!landRline.!!We!pay!for!DSL! May 274947 Extreme!for!our!internet!connection.!!Lately!we!have!been!having!trouble!accessing! the!internet. Utility!Comment:!When!we!call!Verizon!they!apologize!for!the!difficulty!caused!by! their!lines,!and!suggest!that!we!switch!to!Verizon!FiOS,!which!is!more!expensive! than!our!current!DSL!connection.!!We!believe!it!is!a!scam!to!force!us!into!buying! FiOS.!!Even!if!we!did!switch!over!to!FiOS,!we!would!have!to!have!a!section!of! concrete!in!the!front!yard!destroyed!and!repaved!in!order!to!access!Verizon!FiOS.!! We!do!not!want!FiOS,!we!have!told!Verizon!"no"!several!times.!!Our!internet! accessibility!continues!to!decline!and!is!sometimes!nonRexistent.!!Our!concern!is! that!they!are!deliberately!allowing!network!issues!to!occur!to!force!customers!into! buying!their!services.!!We!are!not!the!first!family!we!know!of!with!a!Verizon!phone! line!to!experience!this!issues. Request!of!CPUC:!I!would!like!the!issue!to!be!investigated!to!determine!whether! Verizon!is!abusing!their!duty!to!their!customers!in!their!position!as!a!monopoly. May!=!1
Complaint!/!Concern:!I!wish!Margaret!Serjak!regional!VP!at!Verizon!was!ethical!in! her!marketing!practices.!Her!company!and!staffers!who!work!for!the!company!lie!to! people!in!order!to!get!people!to!switch!to!Fios.!Her!auto!call!says!were!sorry!for! June 281786 phone!line!issues!and!we!would!like!you!to!switch!to!Fios,!but!copper!phone!service! is!working!ok!for!my!family.!I!know!Verizon!has!a!fiscal!interest!to!get!people!to! switch!over,!but!many!people!in!our!state!are!content!with!POTS!(copper). Utility!Comment:!Nothing,!I!did!reach!them!through!Facebook!and!their!social! media!manager!never!sent!a!reply!back. Request!of!CPUC:!Prohibit!Verizon!from!sending!emails!or!phone!calls!saying!the! phone!service!has!issues!when!copper!phone!service!is!working!all!right.!Misleading! marketing!is!not!ethical!in!trying!to!get!people!to!switch!over. June!=!1
Complaint!/!Concern:!NO!PHONE!SERVICE!TO!A!96!YEAR!OLD!WOMAN!WHO!LIVES! July 284424 ALONE! Verizon!telephone!service!is!upgrading!the!area!to!fios.!They!contacted!my!mother! whos!account!)!above!I!have!referenced!telling!her!that!they!were!going!to!change! her!phone!service!from!a!copper!line!to!fios!on!7/25/2013.!The!technicians!came! and!started!the!job!but!stopped!half!way!and!left!the!job!undone.!Her!copper!line! phone!service!had!been!disconnected!and!she!is!without!a!phone.!She!is!96!years! old.!Last!year!she!fell!in!the!middle!of!the!night!she!was!able!to!call!me!and!say!my! name.!I!went!over!to!her!house!and!she!was!near!death.!Had!that!happened!last! night!I!would!have!found!her!dead!when!I!went!over!to!her!house!because!I!could! not!reach!her. Utility!Comment:!I!have!spent!in!total!over!3!hours!trying!to!get!someone!who! could!get!her!phone!service!back.!She!does!not!have!a!cell!phone!as!she!is!hard!of! hearing!and!cannot!hear!on!one.!I!last!night!I!got!a!run!around!as!I!did!not!have!her! account!number.!I!finally!got!to!a!representative!who!tried!to!help!but!couldnt!due! to!that!catch!22,!a!supervisor!was!"too!busy!to!be!bothered!with!that!problem"!I! called!back!this!morning!and!was!able!to!schedule!a!visit!for!this!afternoon.!When!I! called!because!no!one!showed!up!found!out!they!had!cancelled!the!order!for!today.! I!went!through!the!automated!phone!system,!had!a!representative!who!tried!to! help!and!she!told!me!it!would!take!until!August!1st!before!they!could!come!out.!I! asked!for!a!supervisor!and!got!the!"billing"!supervisor!who!said!the!same!thing.!He! then!connected!me!to!Verizon!cell!phone!service!to!get!a!cell!phone!for!her. Request!of!CPUC:!I!would!like!the!CPUC!to!investigate!and!then!heavily!fine!the! company!because!if!they!can!do!this!to!my!mother!then!the!corporate!mentally!of! for!profit!without!a!mortal!compass!wins. July!=!1
Complaint!/!Concern:!Over!the!past!several!months,!I!have!requested!the!start!of! nonRfiber,!PUCRregulated!copper!service!that!utilizes!preRexisting!(and!available)! August 290514 copper!wire!pairs!from!the!street,!and!that!works!with!my!preRexisting!phone!jacks. Utility!Comment:!They!claim!that!because!a!Verizon!instaled!an!ONT!box!to!provide! video,!as!provided!for!by!the!HOA,!they!are!now!unwilling!to!allow!copper!service! anymore,!in!an!attempt!to!push!customers!over!to!fiber,!which!can!be!unregulated! and!must!utilize!only!one!single!RJR11!jack!located!inconveniently!alongside!the! ONT!box. Request!of!CPUC:!Order!and!direct!Verizon!Communications,!as!a!natural!monopoly! and!the!incumbant!carrier!in!the!CIty!of!Long!Beach,!to!connect!POTS!(plain!old! tgelephone!service)!using!PUCRregulated!copper!lines!that!utilize!my!preRexisting! phone!jacks!in!my!bedroom!and!living!room!area,!and!disregard!the!presence!of!the! ONT!box.!This!mixed!service!is!called!multiRmedia!service. Utility!Name:!Verizon!Communications August!=!1
Sept!=!0
Complaint!/!Concern:!On!Sep!21!the!phone!stop!working.!!My!understanding!at! time!the!Internet!connect!&!TV!was!switched!to!FIOS!was!that!the!phone!would! stay!on!the!copper!line.!The!residents!at!this!address!are!over!90!years!old!&!I!need! the!more!reliable!service!&!911!access.!!When!I!called!to!explain!that!the!phone! October 296113 stopped!working!I!call!the!copper!line!repair.!!The!person!told!me!that!the!phone! was!now!on!FIOS!&!I!would!be!transferred.!!I!asked!to!speak!with!a!supervisor!&! was!put!on!hold!for!1!hour!&!45!minutes!before!I!hung!up.!!Later!in!the!day!the! phone!started!to!work. Utility!Comment:!I!never!spoke!to!a!live!person.!!I!tried!their!chat,!explained!the! problem,!but!the!canned!chat!responses!did!not!solve!my!problem. Request!of!CPUC:!1.!Verify!that!310R375Rxxxx!is!a!copper!line 2.!If!the!line!is!FIOS!have!verizon!change!it!to!copper!which!was!our!original! agreement. 3.!I!lost!2!billable!hour,!please!have!verizon!compensate!me!for!my!lost!income. Utility!Name:!verizon
Consumer!says!that!he!is!on!the!do!not!call!list!and!he!continues!to!be!contacted.! He!says!that!Verizon!technicians!have!come!twice!to!install!FIOS!which!he!has!never! 299060 requested.!Consumer!seeks!to!be!removed!from!all!lists.!Please!investigate!his! concerns.!Contact!both!the!consumer!and!PUC!with!your!investigation!results!and!a! resolution....!Thank!You October!=!2
Nov!=!0
Complaint!/!Concern:!I!was!a!customer!of!Verizon!and!in!October,!I!called!them!to! schedule!a!change!of!address!because!I!was!moving!in!November.!It!was!agreed! they!would!switch!me!over!with!no!charge,!but!they!did!not!provide!TV!service!at! our!new!home,!so!they!said!they!would!cancel!that!portion!of!our!service!no! charge.!They!also!told!me!I!would!have!to!switch!from!DSL!to!FIOS!and!add!in!a! home!phone!line,!even!if!I!never!used!it,!that!was!my!only!option.!Over!the!next!2! December 306393 weeks,!I!spent!over!14!hours!on!the!phone!trying!to!get!our!internet!working,!they! said!they!sent!4!technicians!out,!but!twice!they!didn’t!show!up!and!there!was! NEVER!a!technician!in!my!home.!I!called!and!complained!and!they!told!me!that!they! would!not!be!able!to!get!it!to!work!and!that!they!would!cancel!my!service.!I! inquired!further!and!they!insisted!and!promised!I!would!not!receive!a!cancellation! charge!or!ANY!other!related!fees.!Dec.!15th,!I!received!a!bill!for!$206.!85!for! cancellation!fees!and!other!related!charges. Utility!Comment:!I!called!Verizon!right!at!8:00am!when!they!opened!on!December! 16th,!I!spoke!with!4!people!before!I!found!someone!that!said!they!would!help!me.!I! explained!to!her!the!problem!and!not!only!was!she!rude,!she!told!me!they!were! valid!charges,!that!she!was!the!only!person!that!could!help!me!and!that!she! wouldnt!be!doing!anything.!I!told!her!I!was!so!upset!and!she!told!me!my!only! option!was!to!let!it!go!into!collections.!That!makes!no!sense!!I!would!never!ruin!my! credit!on!their!behalf.!I!begged!to!talk!to!someone!else!or!for!her!to!listen!to!my! story.!She!ended!the!conversation!while!I!was!still!talking!and!then!hung!up!on!me.! I!called!back!again!and!the!same!thing!happened.!I!am!so!upset.!This!seems!to!be! the!only!option!to!voice!my!complain!and!have!a!chance!at!having!the!bill!reversed.
Complaint!/!Concern:!On!November!22,!2013!I!requested!to!have!Fiber!Optics! discontinued!and!restore!COPPER!Land!Line!Services.!Fiber!Optics!does!not!work!! 305339 on!LIFE!ALERT!and/or!SECURITY!Systems!in!a!Power!Outage. Utility!Comment:!On!the!22nd!of!November!they!submitted!a!work!order!to!change! FIBER!to!COPPER!line.!Verizon!manager!assured!me!it!will!take!from!a!few!minutes! to!4!hrs!to!restore!the!COPPER!line.!However!that!was!not!the!case.!We!were!out!of! phone!service!for!4!entire!days.!I!contacted!Verizon!about!no!phone!service.!Within! minutes!the!phone!service!was!restored.!I!asked!them!if!the!phone!service!was! going!to!be!the!COPPER!line.!They!assured!me!that!it!was!going!to!be!as!ordered! (Copper!Line).!Since!November!22,!2013!I!continue!to!have!fiber!optic!line.!I!have! called!Verizon!time!after!time!and!now!it!is!unfortunate!they!say!they!cannot! restore!my!line!to!Copper.!Verizon!has!continued!to!deny!my!request!and!take!me! on!a!wild!goose!chase. Request!of!CPUC:!Have!Verizon!restore!my!Land!Line!to!Copper
December!=!!2
Total!!=!17 EXHIBIT B BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Evaluate Telecommunications Corporations Service Quality Performance and Consider Modification Rulemaking 11-12-001 to Service Quality Rules.
AMENDED RESPONSE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 9, ON THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF TURN URGING THE COMMISSION TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PROTECT VERIZON CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF VERIZON’S LANDLINE NETWORK
April 16, 2014
Marc D. Joseph Jamie L. Mauldin Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 Voice (650) 589-5062 Fax [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Communications Workers of America, District 9
2709-016cv BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Evaluate Telecommunications Corporations Service Quality Rulemaking 11-12-001 Performance and Consider Modification to Service Quality Rules.
AMENDED RESPONSE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 9, ON THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF TURN URGING THE COMMISSION TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PROTECT VERIZON CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF VERIZON’S LANDLINE NETWORK
Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling extending time for filing responses to this motion, the Communications Workers of America, District 9 (“CWA”), respectfully submits this Response to TURN’s Emergency Motion Urging the
Commission to Take Immediate Action to Protect Verizon Customers and Prevent
Further Deterioration of Verizon’s Landline Network (“Motion”).
I. CWA SUPPORTS TURN’S MOTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF
Verizon has a statutory duty to furnish and maintain adequate facilities necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public.1 This proceeding focuses on the adequacy of Verizon’s
(and AT&T’s) service and whether it is providing reliable telecommunications
1 Pub. Util. Code § 451.
2709-016cv 1 service of sufficient quality to ensure public safety and meet its obligations under state law and Commission directives.2
In its Motion, TURN asserts that Verizon is “engaging in business practices that are contrary to its statutory obligation to provide adequate service and harmful to the interests of its California customers.”3 TURN provides examples of Verizon deliberately neglecting the repair and maintenance of its copper network in order to migrate customers off of the copper network and onto fiber. CWA, in this Response, provides more evidence of Verizon’s practice of forcibly migrating customers onto fiber.
Fiber networks provide new and improved advanced digital services that benefit consumers, businesses, and public institutions. CWA supports Verizon’s expansion of its fiber-based high-speed broadband and video FiOS service to homes, businesses, and institutions. However, Verizon has stopped its FiOS build, leaving many customers in its service area on the wrong side of the digital divide. In those areas in which Verizon has deployed its fiber network, it is now forcing customers onto its fiber network and Voice Link without the Commission having full knowledge of the effects of that migration on its customers. CWA believes forced migration from copper to fiber without the benefits of regulatory oversight to protect consumers is premature. Any migration to non-copper networks must require full disclosure about that network’s capabilities while providing regulatory oversight to ensure consumer protections. As CWA explains below, the Commission should
2 Scoping Memo, p. 9. 3 TURN Emergency Motion, p. 2.
2709-016cv 2 require Verizon to participate in the FCC’s technology transitions trial prior to any forced migration from copper to fiber or Voice Link. Therefore, CWA supports
TURN’s Motion and asks the Commission to grant the requested relief in order to protect Verizon’s customers.4
II. VERIZON IS FORCIBLY MOVING CUSTOMERS OFF OF COPPER
TURN’s Motion provides evidence from customers showing that Verizon is actively implementing a strategy to forego necessary copper network maintenance and force phone service customers onto fiber.5 In fact, CWA members who are
Verizon employees are currently being trained to use the “Fiber is the Only Fix” process, which mandates that Verizon’s fiber network (FiOS) is the only repair solution for voice only customers who are frequently impacted by service trouble on the copper network and are eligible for fiber service.6
The “Fiber is the Only Fix” process requires that copper-based landline customers who have two or more repair dispatches in one year are tagged as
“chronic” customers.7 Customers who are in close proximity to each other and are in a FiOS–eligible area and the area requires at least one repair dispatch per year are tagged as “cluster” customers.8 If a chronic or cluster customer calls for a repair, a “ghost” migrate order is created in addition to the trouble ticket.9
4 Id. pp. 32-34. 5 Id. pp. 11-20. 6 Attachment A, Declaration of Ellen West, ¶ 4, 5. 7 Id, at ¶ 6. 8 Id. 9 Id.
2709-016cv 3 When a tagged chronic or cluster customer calls for a repair, a Verizon employee will offer to transfer the customer to FiOS and advises the customer that the FiOS service will not change the customer’s current voice services, calling plans, or rates.10 At that time, if the customer refuses to migrate to FiOS, a Verizon representative will advise the customer that Verizon is no longer repairing copper lines in that area, so the only option is to migrate to fiber.11 If the customer still refuses to migrate to fiber, Verizon will disconnect the customer’s service within 15 days.12
Verizon’s practice of forcing copper-based landline customers off of the regulated copper network and onto fiber may harm customers who seek the security of the copper-based phone service. Indeed, TURN’s Motion contains several complaints from customers who are unaware that fiber telephone service may provide different services.13 In fact, FiOS depends on back-up power in a power outage.14 As statutorily mandated, Verizon should fully disclose the fiber network’s capabilities and limitations as compared to the copper network, especially with regard to the back-up power feature. It is premature to forcibly migrate customers off of copper-based landlines and onto fiber, when the effects of the migration are unknown and the necessary consumer protections are not in place. Moreover,
Verizon is engaging in deceptive practices, which may harm its customers and violates its statutory duties to provide adequate service.
10 Id. at ¶ 7. 11 Id. at ¶ 8. 12 Id. 13 TURN Emergency Motion, p. 19. 14 Id., at p. 18.
2709-016cv 4 III. VERIZON IS EMPLOYING VOICE LINK IN CALIFORNIA
TURN’s Motion describes a fixed wireless service called “Voice Link,” which has been deployed in several states, including New York and New Jersey. 15
However, TURN does not know when Voice Link will be offered in California.16 As of December 31, 2013, Verizon had migrated 78 customers to Voice Link in
California.17 While 78 migrations is not evidence of a state-wide expansion, it is evidence that the Voice Link exists in California. As TURN’s motion documents,
Voice Link offers inferior service to copper landline service. Voice Link service is incompatible with fax machines, credit card machines, medical alert and home security monitoring systems, does not allow DSL service, or allow a customer to accept collect calls or call the operator by dialing “0.”18 Voice Link is also not compatible with Video Relay services for members of the deaf and disabled community.19 Most importantly, 911 services are unreliable if a customer moves the Voice Link unit to a new location.20
If Verizon uses the same practice of forced migration onto the Voice Link wireless system that it currently uses onto the fiber network, Verizon customers will see a marked degradation in services. Verizon has stopped building out and installing FiOS and may deploy Voice Link where FiOS is unavailable 21 The
Commission must stop Verizon from forcing customers off of the copper-based
15 Id., pp. 22-23. 16 Id. p. 20. 17 Attachment A, Declaration of Ellen West, ¶ 9. 18 TURN Emergency Motion, p. 24. 19 Id. p. 25. 20 Id. p. 24. 21 Id. p. 21.
2709-016cv 5 landline and onto Voice Link. Immediate action could nip this problem in the bud
and stop an all-out statewide expansion of Voice Link and abandonment of the
copper network, like Verizon attempted in New York after Hurricane Sandy.22
VI. VERIZON SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN IP TRANSITION TRIALS AT THE FCC
In January 2014, the FCC initiated a proceeding inviting a diverse set of
experiments and data collection initiatives that will allow the FCC and the public to
evaluate how customers are affected by the technology transitions that are
transforming our nation’s voice communications services.23 The proceeding asks
providers to submit detailed proposals to test real-world applications of planned
changes in technology that are likely to have tangible effects on consumers.24 These
voluntary service-based experiments will examine the impacts of replacing existing
communications technologies with IP-based alternatives in discrete geographic
areas.25 In fact, AT&T has already proposed to conduct trials in two wire centers,
one in rural Carbon Hill, Alabama and the other in suburban Del Ray, Florida.26 In
conducting these trials, the FCC will consult with the state public utilities
commission affected by the trials, thus ensuring transparency and stakeholder
involvement.27
22 Id. pp. 29-30. 23 Technology Transitions, et al. GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of ProposedRulemaking, Report and Order, Jan. 31, 2014. 24 Id. at p. 4. 25 Id. 26 FCC, Public Notice, “Commission Seeks Comment on AT&T’s Proposal for Service-Based Technology Transitions Experiments,” Feb. 28, 2014 (rel). 27 Id. at p. 13.
2709-016cv 6 In order to determine how customers are affected by transitioning from a copper-based and time division multiplex (TDM) switched network to fiber or wireless networks, the Commission should require Verizon to join the FCC
Technology Transition trials and propose a trial in a wire center located in
California. Then the Commission can collect data on the effects of transitioning customers off of copper and onto fiber. This information will provide key information for adapting existing consumer protections for regulated copper service to those necessary during future migrations to fiber or wireless. Until then, Verizon should be prohibited from forcibly migrating customers onto fiber and Voice Link.
V. CONCLUSION
The Commission should grant TURN’s requested actions as it is premature for Verizon to forcibly migrate customers onto fiber and Voice Link. The
Commission should also require Verizon to join the FCC IP transition trial in order to gather data needed to protect Verizon’s customers.
2709-016cv 7
Dated: April 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marc D. Joseph Jamie L. Mauldin Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 Voice (650) 589-5062 Fax [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Communications Workers of America, District 9
2709-016cv 8
EXHIBIT C Communications Division
1 Communications Division
Communications Division Report on Telephone Carrier Service Quality for the Year 2010
I. Executive Summary
This report is prepared by the Communications Division (CD) pursuant to General Order (G.O.) 133-C §7 -Staff Investigations and Additional Reporting Requirements - which provides that staff may investigate any company that does not meet a minimum service quality reporting standard level, and any major service interruption, and may also recommend the Commission institute an investigation into a carrier’s performance and alleged failure to meet the reporting service level for six or more consecutive months. There are no penalties if a carrier does not meet the minimum standards.
This report discusses telephone wireline carrier service quality in 2010 based on data submitted pursuant the 2010 G.O. 133-C, and AT&T-California’s and Verizon California’s service outages that resulted from rain storms in their respective service areas in Southern California beginning in late December 2010.
G.O. 133-C has five standards to measure telephone service quality that primarily apply to residential customers and small businesses with 5 or fewer lines: 1) Service Installation time (within 5-days), 2) Meeting Installation Commitments 95% of the time, 3) % of Trouble Reports per number of lines, 4) Out-of-Service Restoration Time (90% within 24 hours) for outages that were within the control of the utility, and 5) Answer Time to reach a live operator (80% of calls in less than 60 seconds). Measures 1-5 apply to the small local exchange companies (Small LECs) and measures 3-5 apply to the four large phone companies and competitive local carriers regulated under the Uniform Regulatory Framework (URF), collectively referred to as URF Carriers. Twenty seven wireline carriers (4 large, 8 CLEC, and 15 small LECs) submitted G.O. 133-C reports.
CD believes that the Trouble Ticket and Out-of-Service measures are the most important standards because they have public safety implications, relating to a customer’s ability to make and receive calls. The following is a summary of carrier’s performance in meeting the service quality standards, beginning with three standards that apply to all carriers.
Trouble Reports
All of the twenty seven wireline carriers met the Customer Trouble Report standard of between 6% and 10% per 100 lines, depending on the size of the reporting company.
2 Communications Division
Out-of-Service
This standard proved the most difficult for carriers to meet, with the small telephone companies reporting the best results, and the four URF ILECs having the worst performance. Only one URF ILEC, SureWest, met this standard of restoring service within 24 hours 90% of the time, and that was in just four out of twelve months. AT&T, Verizon and Frontier never attained the 90% standard, with ATT lagging the quartet with restoral rates in 2010 ranging from 33% to 54%.
Regarding the eight CLECs, only three met the standard in six or more months of the year, and the other five met the standard in three or less months of the year. Conversely, thirteen of the fifteen small LECs met the standard between 9 and 12 months of the year. Most notably, Ducor, Frontier of the Southwest, Kerman, Sierra and Siskiyou met the standard in all twelve months of 2010. The remaining two small LECs met the standard for at least half of the year.
Operator Answer Time
None of the URF ILECs were able to meet the Answer Time goal of routing callers to a live operator within 60 seconds for each quarter of the year, SureWest achieved the goal 3 of 4 quarters in 2010, Citizens and AT&T achieved the goal 2 of 4 quarters, and Verizon did not meet the standard in any quarter.
Five of the eight CLECs met the Answer Time standard in all four quarters of 2010. One company met the goal 3 of 4 quarters, one company did not meet it in any quarter, and one company did not report anything.
Only 9 of the fifteen Small LECs provided Answer Time data, for 2010. All 9 of these reporting companies met the Answer Time standard.
The following two standards apply only to the small LECs. Of the fifteen companies, fourteen reported for all twelve months of the year. Frontier Communications of the Southwest had been acquired by Frontier Communications from Verizon earlier in 2010, and only reported for the last six months of the year.
Installation Interval
All of the fourteen small LECs that reported for the full year met the standard of installing service in five days or less in each of the twelve months. Frontier Communications of the Southwest met the standard in each of the six months reported.
Installation Commitments
Eleven of the fifteen small LECs met the standard to keep installation appointments 95% of the time for each of the twelve months, and the remaining three companies that
3 Communications Division reported for all twelve months met the goal in eleven of the twelve months. Frontier Communications of the Southwest met the standard in each of the six months reported.
Winter Rainstorms in Southern California
The rainstorms in late-December 2010 and early-January 2011 in Southern California caused severe flooding in the service areas of AT&T and Verizon and over 250,000 people lost telecommunications service. The time that it took to restore service in these areas was not reflected in AT&T’s and Verizon’s out-of-service restoration time statistics because these outages are considered to be outside of the control of the companies and excluded from the calculation. To respond to the high number of service outages that resulted from the storm, both companies reassigned staff to restore service. AT&T also increased overtime for field repair personnel and hired more seasonal employees in anticipation of more storms. Verizon made software enhancements to their dispatch system and increased employee training.
Differences in How Carriers Calculate Measures and Report Data
After reviewing the G.O. 133-C reports and raw data submitted by the carriers and additional storm-related information, CD observes that there are differing interpretations for the treatment of excluded events in calculating Out-of-Service intervals, particularly during states of emergency. There is no definition of when a state or emergency ends, allowing subjectivity in calculating service restoration times.
Some carriers like Verizon, incorrectly included data and video services in calculating Trouble Tickets and Out-of-Service repair intervals, which are only supposed to reflect voice services. Some carriers do not provide raw data, as required, or the raw data was incomplete. Finally the details in the raw data lack sufficient specificity to allow staff to reproduce the carrier’s reported results and verify that the reported data was calculated in compliance with applicable rules.
CD’s Recommendations
Given that the three of the five largest telephone wireline carriers in the state did not meet the Out-of- Service standard of restoring service within 24 hours 90% of the time in any month of the year, and other carriers had varying degrees of difficulty meeting this standard and the operator answer time standard, CD believes that a review of G.O. 133-C is needed. Due to the public safety aspects of having quality, reliable service, the Commission should follow –up to examine why service quality standards are not being met and what needs to be done so that wireline carrier can provide reliable service to customers
CD recommends that the Commission initiate an Order Instituting Investigation (OII), and/or an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to review the G.O. 133-C standards, particularly with regards to Out-of-Service restoration times and assess why carriers consistently could not meet this standard, why carriers are not regularly meeting the
4 Communications Division operator answer time standard of 60 seconds or less, consider adopting new standards or modify existing standards, and consider penalty mechanisms for companies that consistently fail to meet one or more standards.
II. Background
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) adopted Service Quality (SQ) reporting measures and standards in G.O. 133-C through Decision (D.) 09-07-019 on July 9, 2009 as a result of Rulemaking (R.) 02-12-004. This Rulemaking was opened in December 2002 to review and revise the G.O. 133-B service quality measures and standards. G.O. 133-C and D.09-07-019 relied on the changes in regulatory policies adopted in D.06-08-030 that favored a reliance on increased market competition as opposed to regulatory intervention to ensure quality services were provided to California consumers.
G.O. 133-C adopted five standards to measure service quality: (1) telephone installation intervals (2) installation commitments (3) customer trouble reports (4) out of service repair intervals and (5) billing, non-billing and trouble answer times. Measurements 1-5 apply to small local exchange carriers (or Small LECs), measures 3-5 apply to Uniform Regulated Framework (URF) incumbent local exchange carriers (URF ILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) [collectively referred to as URF carriers].
In addition to the reports, carriers are required to provide the underlying raw data used in calculating the reported results for every measure except answer times. Wireless carriers, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) carriers, resellers, and any ILEC or CLEC with less than 5,000 customers [unless they are a carrier of last resort] are exempt from reporting any of the five service quality measures required by G.O. 133-C. However, wireless carriers are required to provide coverage maps on both their websites and at their retail locations.
The service quality results are calculated on a monthly basis and reported quarterly, except for the Answer Time standard, which is calculated quarterly and reported annually on February 15th.
Twenty seven telephone carriers filed G.O. 133-C reports that had data on them for 2010, and CD posted these on the CPUC’s website at Telecommunications Carrier' Service Quality Reports .
III. G.O. 133-C Reported Service Quality Performance for Calendar Year 2010
The G.O. 133-C telephone service quality standards adopted in D. 09-07-019 primarily apply to residential customers and small businesses, defined as those with five or fewer lines, and are as follows:
5 Communications Division
• Telephone Installation Intervals. Installation interval is the period between a customer requesting basic service, and the service becoming operational. The standard is 5 days or less. This measure applies only to residential and small business customers. All reporting carriers are required to provide the underlying raw data for this measure.
• Installation Commitments. Installation commitments reflect a carrier meeting its promised installation date (customer actions which prevent carrier completion will not be considered missed). The standard is 95% or greater. This measure applies only to residential and small business customers. All reporting carriers are required to provide the underlying raw data for this measure.
• Customer Trouble Reports. Customer Trouble Reports are reports by customers and users expressing dissatisfaction with telephone company services. This measure applies to residential and business customers. The standard is a ceiling of (a) 6 trouble reports per 100 working lines for reporting units with 3,000 or more lines, (b) 8 reports per hundred working lines for units with 1,001 – 2,999 lines, and (c) 10 reports per hundred working lines for units with less than 1,000 lines. Only general rate case ILECs and facilities based URF carriers with 5,000 or more lines, along with URF carriers with less than 5,000 lines that are carriers of last resort are required to report this measure. All reporting carriers are required to provide the underlying raw data for this measure.
• Out of Service Repair Intervals. The out of service repair interval is a measure of the time between a carrier receiving an out of service trouble report and the time the service is restored for outages that were within a carriers control (e.g. did not occur on a Sunday, Federal Holiday, or during a catastrophic event). This measurement applies only to residential and small businesses customers. The standard is 90% of the reports restored in 24 hours or less. Only general rate case ILECs and facilities based URF carriers with 5,000 or more lines, along with URF carriers with less than 5,000 lines that are carriers of last resort are required to report this measure. All reporting carriers are required to provide the underlying raw data for this measure. The reported data is compiled monthly and reported quarterly. The Attachment to this report summarizes the out of service restoral results for the reporting carriers.
• Answer Times. The answer time measure is a measure of billing, non-billing, and trouble report call answer times. This measure excludes specialized business account representatives that were established to address the needs of a single large business customer or group of such customers. The standard is 80% of the calls being answered by a live agent in 60 seconds, or 80% of the calls being routed to a live agent within 60 seconds if an automated voice response system is used. Only general rate case ILECs and facilities based URF carriers with 5,000 or more lines, along with URF carriers with less than 5,000 lines that are carriers of last resort are required to report this measure.
6 Communications Division
IV. Summary of Results
Uniform Regulatory Framework Carriers (URF)
Customer Trouble Reports
The four URF ILECs (AT&T, Verizon, Citizens, and SureWest) all met the standard of having no more than 6 to 10 trouble reports per 100 lines based upon their respective line counts for each of the twelve months.
Out of Service Repair Intervals.
All of the URF ILECs had difficulty meeting the Out of Service Repair Interval standard in 2010.
SureWest, (42,000 access lines) met the Commission’s goal of restoring service in 24 hours or less 90% of the time for four months of the year, and nearly made the goal for two months of the year (86% and 88%) . For the remaining six months of the year, their restorals within 24 hours were between 71% and 83%. SureWest’s average monthly restoral time was 15-23 hours in 8 of 12 months, and in the remaining months the restoral time ranged from 27 – 69 hours.
Citizens of California (127,000 access lines) never achieved the goal of restoring service in 24 hours or less 90% of the time, but came close at 89% in one month. Citizens typically restored service in 24 hours or less between 71% and 84% of the time. Citizen’s average monthly restoral time was 13 to 23 hours in 7 of the 12 months, and between 25 to 27 hours in the remaining 5 months.
Verizon (2.7 million access lines) also did not meet the goal of restoring service in 24 hours or less 90% of the time in any month of 2010; although it nearly reached the standard in two months (85% and 89%). Typically Verizon restored service in 24 hours or less between 60% and 80% of the time. Verizon’s average monthly restoral time was between 15 and 23 hours nine out of twelve months and between 25 and 35 hours the remaining three months.
AT&T (7.6 Million access lines) did not meet the goal of restoring service in 24 hours or less 90% of the time in any month of 2010. In its best month, AT&T restored service in under 24 hrs just 76% of the time. Conversely in its worst month, AT&T only restored service in less than 24 hours 32% of the time. Typically AT&T restored service in under 24 hours between 33% and 54% of the time. AT&T’s average monthly restoral time took between 28 and 55 hours nine out of twelve months and 18 to 23 hours in the remaining three months.
AT&T restated its reported data to Commission staff several times during the year, as result of inaccuracies in the data for various reasons. Additionally there were, and still are, interpretational differences between CD staff and AT&T regarding AT&T’s practice of selectively excluding or including data in their reported results. G.O. 133-C provides that when outages occur on a Sunday, a Federal holiday, or during a catastrophic event, the time that it takes to restore service during these times is excluded from the service restoral time calculation.
7 Communications Division
AT&T wants to include in its reported results any service restoral that is made within 24 hours, regardless of whether the outage occurred during a day and/or event that is supposed to be excluded from the calculation. However, AT&T would exclude from the measurement calculation those service restoral times that exceeded 24 hours for outages that occurred during a day or event. CD believes that AT&T’s approach is inconsistent and does not comply with the G.O. 133-C requirement that outages that occur on a Sunday, Federal holiday, or during an excluded event should be excluded from the measurement calculation regardless of the time that it took to repair the outage.
Answer Times.
None of the URF carriers achieved the Answer Time goal of routing customers to a live operator in 60 seconds or less 80% of the time in all four quarters. SureWest did the best in this category achieving the goal for 3 of the 4 quarters in 2010. Citizens and AT&T achieved the goal two of the four quarters, with the performance in the remaining quarters ranging from 68% – 79%. Verizon failed to meet the 80% standard in all four quarters of 2010, with results ranging from 60% - 75%.
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
Customer Trouble Reports.
All of the 8 reporting CLECs met the standard of less than 6 to 10 trouble reports per 100 lines for all 12 months. The number of trouble reports per 100 lines to be reported is dependent upon the number of lines served by a reporting unit.
Out of Service Repair Intervals.
None of the eight reporting CLECs met standard of 90% within 24 hours in each of the 12 months in 2010.
Electric Lightwave LLC (19,990 access lines), met the standard on average for 10 of the 12 months. For the other two months they repaired service within 24 hours 83%-88% of the time. The average monthly restoral time ranged from 5 hours to 13 hours.
Advanced Telecom (11,026 access lines) met the standard in 9 months of the year, and restored service within 24 hours on average between 86% to 89% of the time for the remaining three months. Average monthly restoral times for Advanced Telecom ranged from 5 hours to 10 hours.
Cox California (687,290 access lines) met the standard in 6 months of the year. In the remaining 6 months, Cox restored service within 24 hours on average between 83% to 88% of the time. Average monthly restoral time for Cox ranged from 6 hours to 11 hours.
8 Communications Division
AT&T Communications of California (an affiliate of AT&T California with 1,625 access lines) met the standard in 3 of 12 months. In 5 months they restored service within 24 hours 82% - 86% of the time, and 35% to 64% for the remaining 4 months.. On average AT&T Communications’ monthly service restoral times ranged from 4 hours to 18 hours for nine months of the year, and 22 to 52 hours for the remaining three months.
Astound Broadband (18,609 access lines) met the standard in two 12 months of the year and their restored service within 24 hours on average 83%-89% of the time in the other ten months. The average monthly restoral time for Astound Broadband was between 11 hours and 64 hours.
Access Point (335 access lines) met the standard in only two of the 12 months in 2010, while they restored service in under 24 hours on average 83%of the time in one month and between 20% and 55% of the time during the remaining 9 months. Access Point demonstrated the widest range of average monthly restoral times, they were between 10 and 123 hours.
Charter Fiberlink (180,339 access lines) met the standard in one month. They restored service within 24 hours on average 82% - 89% of the time during five months and on average 73% – 80% of the time for the remaining six months. . Charter Fiberlink’s average monthly restoral time ranged from 11 – 20 hours during the year.
TelePacific (76,551 access lines) did not meet the standard in any month of the year. TelePacific restored service in less than 24 hours on average only 25% – 60% of the time during 2010. Their monthly average restoral time ranged from 38 hours to 151 hours.
Answer Times
The following three CLECs that did not meet the Trouble Report Answer Time standard (80% contact with an operator in less than 60 seconds ) for all four quarters: 1) Electric Lightwave, 2) Astound Broadband, and 3) Cox California. Electric Lightwave met the standard three of the four quarters of the year. Astound did not meet the standard in any quarter. Cox did not report the measure at all.
Small Local Exchange Carriers
The fifteen small local exchange carriers (Small LECs) for the most part met or exceeded the standards for Installation Intervals, Installation Commitments, Customer Trouble Reports, Answer Times, and Out of Service restoral times for the months reported. One of the companies, Frontier Communications of the Southwest (Frontier SW) had recently been acquired by Frontier Communications from Verizon and only reported results for the last six months of the year.
Telephone Installation Intervals.
Fourteen Small LECs achieved installation intervals of 5 days or less for all in each twelve months of 2010. Frontier SW met this standard for each of the six months reported.
9 Communications Division
Installation Commitments.
Thirteen of the Small LECs met this standard in each of the twelve months. Three companies, Winterhaven, Foresthill, and Frontier Communications West Coast met the standard in 11 months of the year. Frontier Communications SW met this standard during five of the six months reported.
Customer Trouble Reports.
All fourteen of Small LECs that reported for the full year met the standard based upon their line counts, for each month of the year. Frontier Communications SW met the standard in each of the six months that they reported.
Out of Service Repair Intervals.
Four of the fifteen Small LEC’s, Ducor, , Kerman, Sierra, and Siskiyou met the standard to restore service within 24 hours 90% of the time in each of the l twelve months . Frontier Communications SW met the standard in each of the six months reported. The average monthly outage duration for these five companies ranged from 1 hour to 10 hours.
Five companies, Calaveras, Cal-Ore, Happy Valley, Ponderosa, and Winterhaven met the standard in eleven months, with service restoral times in the remaining month ranging from 60% to 88%. The average monthly outage duration for these carriers ranged from 1 hour to 22 hours.
Two companies, Volcano and Hornitos met the standard in ten months, with their service restoral times during the remaining two months ranging from 75% to 88%. Their average monthly restoral time ranged from 2 hours to 23 hours.
Two companies, Frontier Communications West Coast and Foresthill met the standard for nine months with the balance of the year demonstrating restorals in the range of 79% to 89%. The monthly average outage duration for these two carriers ranged from 3 hours to 16 hours.
One company, Pinnacles, was only met the standard in seven months of the year, and restored service within 24 hours 50% - 83% of the time during the remaining five months. The average monthly duration of Pinnacles’ outages ranged from 4 hours to 36 hours.
Answer Times
Nine of the Small LECs provided answer time data, and all met the standard for each of the 4 quarters of 2010. Six carriers: Calaveras Telephone, Ducor Telephone, Cal-Ore Telephone, Pinnacles Telephone, Ponderosa Telephone, and Siskiyou Telephone, did not report this information with their 4th quarter G.O. 133-C filing.
10 Communications Division
Performance Improvement Plans Submitted by Carriers
G.O. 133-C § 7 allows staff to require carriers with two or more measures below the reporting service level in one year, or with one measure below the industry average (e.g., service restoration 90% ≤ 24 hours) to meet with staff and present proposals to improve performance.
Because all four URF ILECs failed to meet the service restoration standard for out of service repairs, staff asked for their plans to improve performance. Three of the carriers provided performance improvement plans.
AT&T stated that it would improve service restoration times by increasing overtime hours, borrowing personnel from other workgroups and assigning them to maintenance fieldwork, while also increasing their seasonal workforce in anticipation of possible storms.
Verizon will improve restoration times by hiring contractors, workforce reassignments, software enhancements to better dispatch out of service tickets, and providing performance education to staff.
Citizens will improve restoration times by implementing additional reporting procedures for trouble tickets, revise their monitoring and communications process with outside technicians, and increase work hours to meet the workload.
SureWest has not provided a performance improvement plan to CD.
V. Service Quality and the Storms of 2010
In December 2010, a series of rainstorms battered Southern California resulting in flooding that caused over 250,000 people to lose telecommunications service for various periods of time. These rainstorms caused then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare states of emergency in twelve counties in Southern California. Because the outages were significant in their impact on consumers, Senator Alex Padilla held a hearing on February 4, 2011. The following section provides some information on the outages and telecommunications carriers’ service restoral efforts. As a note, G.O. 133-C excludes states of emergency from the service restoral time statistics discussed in the prior section.
Carrier Responsiveness
Aging of Outages
AT&T had 187,159 outages, with a peak of 78,000 outstanding repair tickets for one day on January 1, 2011. 58% of its out of service tickets (109,000) were completed within four days and 78% (145,587) were completed within ten days. Approximately 800 lines remained out of service at the 30 day mark. AT&T reports that its maintenance load of tickets had returned to normal levels (between 8,000 and 10,000) as of January 22, 2011.
11 Communications Division
Verizon had approximately 73,047 storm related trouble tickets (both out of service and noise on the line) peaking at 30,860. Verizon’s aging information showed that 41% (30,263) of the trouble tickets were cleared within 24 hours, and 75% (54,785) cleared within six days. Approximately 7,100 lines were out of service or having other problems for at least two weeks. Verizon reported that all of their storm related outages had been repaired as of January 28, 2011.
Carriers Actions in Response to the 2010 Storms
AT&T responded to the storm damage by: increasing overtime, moving 140 installation and maintenance technicians from the Bay Area to the Central Valley and Southern California, re- assigning 600 Construction and Engineering technicians to repair services, and redirecting 170 First Mile technicians to backup repair technicians. Also AT&T brought in 242 technicians from out of state, and re-hired 87 retirees which AT&T states will remain until the storm season ends. Additionally AT&T offered affected customers call forwarding to another telephone number, and if the outage lasted more than 24 hours, a credit to their bill.
Verizon extended workforce schedules to 10 hour days, six days a week, hired contractors, brought in technicians from other states, and redeployed internal staff from non-impacted sections of their company to assist in the repair effort. Verizon also provided affected customers call forwarding to another telephone number.
Both AT&T and Verizon stated that their priority for restoring service, was business or medical customer first, and residential customers thereafter.
VI. Communications Division Observations
After reviewing carriers’ information, G.O. 133-C reports, raw data, and meeting with the carriers, CD has the following observations:
• There are different interpretations regarding calculating out of service intervals and the treatment of excludable events in the calculation (e.g., count all repairs made ≤ 24 hours, even those made during excluded events, but exclude from the calculation the service restoration times > 24 hours made during an excluded event). • There is a lack of specificity as to when a state of emergency ends, introducing subjectivity in calculating results. • There are differing interpretations on whether a state of emergency constitutes an exemption for reporting anything for the entire company for one or more months, i.e., should a state of emergency definition be similar to a catastrophic event (e.g., 3% of total company access lines). • Some carriers like, Verizon, include non-voice grade results (data/video) with small business and residential trouble tickets as well as out of service repair tickets that are only supposed to include voice services. • Not all carriers provided raw data.
12 Communications Division
• The details in raw data do not contain sufficient specificity for staff to replicate carrier calculations. • AT&T did not provide complete raw data that corresponded to the total number of outage tickets reported. • Some carriers did not report data for each service quality measure.
VII. Communications Division Recommendations
Since some carriers are regularly failing to meet the service restoration time and trouble ticket answer time standards, CD recommends that the Commission initiate an Order Instituting Investigation (OII), and an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to address carriers' compliance with the service quality rules and evaluate whether:
• The adopted standards are appropriate and reasonable, • Changes to the measures are needed, • New standards should be adopted, or existing standards changed/ modified/ eliminated, • More definition is necessary for calculating service restoration time intervals when states of emergency are declared, • There should be any exclusions at all in calculating service restoration times, • Standards are needed regarding the form and content of raw data. • A penalty mechanism should be included for substandard service quality performance.
The recommended OII/OIR also would provide a forum for the Commission to get input from carriers as to what impediments they are faced with in regularly meeting the service restoration and answer time standards. The Commission could assess whether special requirements are necessary for reporting to staff the effects of severe storm or other catastrophic events and actions taken to restore service. Currently carriers do not have specific obligations to provide storm damage progress reports to the Commission, and the data provided was lacking in consistency and completeness.
13 EXHIBIT D ALJ/PSW/gd2 Date of Issuance 12/12/2011
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Evaluate FILED Telecommunications Corporations Service PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Quality Performance and Consider DECEMBER 1, 2011 Modification to Service Quality Rules. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE RULEMAKING 11-12-001
ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING
570052 - 1 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING ...... 1 1. Summary...... 2 2. Background...... 4 2.1. Decision Implementing Service Quality Measures...... 4 2.2. March 2011 Staff Service Quality Report...... 6 2.3. Telephone Service Outage Letters to the Commission ...... 9 3. Preliminary Scoping Memo ...... 11 3.1. Issues...... 12 3.2. Preliminary Schedule ...... 15 4. Category of Proceeding and Need for Hearing ...... 16 5. Service of OIR, Creation of Service List, and Subscription Service ...... 17 5.1. Updating Information ...... 18 5.2. Serving and Filing Documents...... 19 5.3. Subscription Service ...... 19 6. Public Advisor...... 19 7. Intervenor Compensation ...... 20 8. Ex parte Communications...... 20
ATTACHMENT A – March 2011 Staff Report: Telephone Carrier Service Quality Report ATTACHMENT B – Additional Service List
- i - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING
1. Summary Public Utilities (P.U.) Code § 451 requires that telecommunications carriers provide a level of service “…as necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons…and the public.” In Decision (D.) 09-07-019 issued on July 9, 2009, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) adopted General Order (GO) 133-C which contains a minimum set of service quality standards and measures for installation, maintenance, and operator services for local exchange telephone services. The Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that telephone corporations provide customer service that includes reasonable statewide service quality standards including, but not limited to, standards regarding network technical quality, customer service, installation, repair and billing. (D.09-07-019 at 12, P.U. Code § 2896.) In March 2011, the Communications Division (CD) issued a report pursuant to GO 133-C § 7 regarding the quality of telephone service provided by wireline telephone corporations in 2010. (Attachment A to this Order). The report noted the substandard results reported in the GO 133-C service quality reports filed by the carriers in 2010. Additionally, the report provided information regarding the responses of Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T) and Verizon California Inc. (Verizon) to the outage event that affected approximately 250,000 customers in Southern California during the winter storms of December 2010 and January 2011. The Southern California outage event was not reflected in AT&T’s and Verizon’s GO 133-C service quality reports for December 2010 or January 2011 because current rules
- 2 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
exempt carriers from reporting outages caused by a catastrophic event1. The report also provided CD’s observations with regard to GO 133-C service quality reporting. For example, carriers have different interpretations of the calculation methods of the measures, and the underlying raw data submitted to the Commission were often incomplete or not in a format that allowed staff to reproduce carriers’ reported results. CD recommended opening an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to address carriers’ compliance issues and to re- evaluate the existing service quality measures and standards. The Commission received letters from industry parties regarding CD’s March 2011 Report. All except Verizon endorsed the opening of a rulemaking to review carrier service quality performance. In addition, the non-carrier parties suggested that network degradation due to deferred or no maintenance was the primary cause of the extended outages during the winter storms of December 2010 through January 2011, as well as AT&T and Verizon’s inability to meet the Out-of-Service (OOS) repair goals in 2010. Additionally, the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) stated that there are competitive implications for poor service quality because of their reliance on the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) copper facilities. The Commission opens this rulemaking proceeding to review telecommunications carriers’ performance in meeting GO 133-C service quality performance standards in 2010, and to assess whether the existing GO 133-C service quality standards and measures meet the goals of the Commission, are
1 GO 133-C defines catastrophic event as: “an event where there is a declaration of a state of emergency by a federal or state authority, and a widespread service outage (an
Footnote continued on next page
- 3 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
relevant to the current regulatory environment and market, and whether there is a need to establish a penalty mechanism for substandard service quality performance. The questions posed and the answers we elicit are intended to address the issues of this rulemaking.
2. Background
2.1. Decision Implementing Service Quality Measures Decision (D.) 09-07-019 adopted GO 133-C which revised the service quality rules, measures and standards established under GO 133-B. The Commission adopted five minimum sets of service quality measures for installation, maintenance and operator answer time for local exchange telephone service. The goal of these service quality measures was to ensure that telecommunications carriers provide relevant information to the Commission so that it may adequately protect California customers and the public interest. All of the GO 133-C service quality measures apply to rural telephone companies regulated under rate-of-return regulations commonly known as General Rate Case Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (GRC ILECs). However, only three of the measures -- Customer Trouble Reports, Out-of-Service Report and Answer Time -- are applicable to ILECs and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) with 5000 or more customers regulated under the Uniform Regulatory Framework (URF).2 Resellers and Wireless carriers are not subject to GO 133-C reporting. The current GO 133-C service quality measures are the following: outage affecting at least 3% of the carrier’s customers in the state) are circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.” 2 D.09-07-019 at 54. An URF CLEC with less than 5000 customers and authorized as a Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) is required to report Customer Trouble Report, Out-of-Service Report and Answer Time.
- 4 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
1. Installation Intervals – This measures the amount of time to install basic telephone service. The minimum standard is five (5) business days.
2. Installation Commitments – This measures the number of service installation commitments each carrier meets and excludes those instances where customer actions prevent the carrier from meeting the installation commitment. The minimum standard is 95% of the time.
3. Customer Trouble Report – This measures the number of all trouble reports each carrier receives from customers in relation to lines or equipment. Carriers should have no more than 6 trouble reports per 100 lines for reporting units with 3,000 or more lines, no more than 8 reports per 100 lines for units with 1,001-2,999 lines, and no more than 10 reports per hundred lines for units with 1,000 or less lines. The carrier collects the data monthly and reports it to the Commission quarterly.
4. Out-of-Service Report – This measure reflects how long a customer may have to wait to have service repaired. The minimum standard is 90% of a carrier’s out-of-service repair requests should be completed within 24 hours.
5. Answer Time – This measure reflects how quickly a customer can expect to speak with a live agent when calling a carrier’s business office regarding an issue. The minimum standard is 80% of calls should reach a live agent in 60 seconds or less (with a menu option to reach a live agent). In addition, carriers are required to provide the Commission with the underlying raw data for all the reporting measures except Answer Times. All reports and raw data are to be compiled monthly and reported quarterly, and are due 45 days after the end of the quarter, except for Answer Times which are compiled quarterly and reported annually on February 15th of the following year.
- 5 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
2.2. March 2011 Staff Service Quality Report In March 2011, CD prepared a report pursuant to GO 133-C § 7 regarding the quality of telephone service provided by wireline telephone companies in 2010. (Attachment A to this Order). The report, Telephone Carrier Service Quality for the Year 2010, was distributed to the Commissioners and the California Legislature and is attached to this Order. The findings and conclusions in the report were based on the GO 133-C service quality measures submitted by a total of 27 telephone carriers; URF ILECs (4), URF CLECs (8), and the GRC ILECs (15). The report also addressed the responses of Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T) and Verizon California Inc. (Verizon) to the severe winter storms that caused wide-spread service outages in Southern California during the months of December 2010 and January 2011.
1. CD staff’s report regarding the carrier reports for GO 133-C Service Quality measures:
a. Installation Intervals – All of the fourteen GRC ILECs that reported for the full year met the standard of installing service in five days or less in each of the twelve months. Two of the four URF ILECs met the standard in each of the six months reported.
b. Installation Commitments – Eleven of the fifteen GRC ILECs met the standard to keep installation appointments 95% of the time for each of the twelve months, and the remaining three companies that reported for all twelve months met the goal in eleven of the twelve months.
c. Customer Trouble Report – All of the twenty-seven carriers met the Customer Trouble Report standard of between 6% and 10% per 100 lines, depending on the size of the reporting company.
d. Out-of-Service Report - CD’s report showed that among the URF ILECs, AT&T, Verizon, and Frontier Communications of California (Frontier) did not meet the Out-of-Service (OOS)
- 6 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
repair standard for all of the reporting months of 2010. However, SureWest Telephone (SureWest) met the OOS standard for four of the twelve reporting months. With regard to URF CLECs, only three out of eight met the OOS minimum standard for six or more months in 2010. Among the fifteen GRC ILECs, thirteen carriers met the OOS minimum standard for at least nine months or all the reporting months of 2010. In addition, CD compared all of the carrier’s first Quarter 2011 OOS results with their first Quarter 2010 OOS results and found compliance levels remained generally the same. None of the URF CLECs met the minimum OOS standard.
e. Answer Time – CD also found substandard results for this measure. SureWest met the goal for three of the four quarters, AT&T and Frontier met it for two quarters, and Verizon did not meet it in any quarter. A majority of the URF CLECs met all the four reporting quarters of 2010. Only six of the GRC ILECs met all four quarters of 2010.
2. CD staff’s report regarding AT&T’s and Verizon’s responses to the service outages caused by the winter storms of December 2010 and January 2011. In December 2010 and early January 2011, a series of severe rainstorms battered Southern California, resulting in flooding that led to the Governor’s declaration of state of emergency in twelve counties in Southern California. These rainstorms caused over 250,000 AT&T and Verizon customers to lose telecommunications service for various periods of time. The outage event attracted State Senator Alex Padilla’s attention, and he requested that the Commission obtain additional information regarding the carriers’ service restoration efforts. On February 4, 2011, the Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee chaired by Senator Padilla held a hearing because of the significant impact of the outages on customers.
- 7 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
From Senator Padilla’s hearing inquiry, CD noted that, although approximately 50% of the affected customers had service restored within four days, many customers remained without service for ten days, and in some cases for as long as 30 days. CD observed in its March 2011 report that the December 2010 GO 133-C service quality report did not include outage information for the December 2010 rainstorm events in Southern California. This was due to the order’s specific exclusion of data compiled during catastrophic events. CD also cited in its report that GO 133-C lacked specificity as to when a state of emergency ended, what information should be included in the raw data to support carriers’ reported results, and in what format the raw data should be submitted to allow CD to reproduce carrier results. For example, one carrier provided raw data that included less than one half of the service tickets received for the First Quarter 2010, and in numerous other instances, carriers provided raw data in a PDF or picture format that did not show the formula for the underlying calculations. In 2010, CD found that AT&T’s first and second quarter supporting raw data files were truncated and required several re-runs and resubmissions of the data to provide a full reporting of Out-of-Service repair tickets. CD’s staff recommended in its report that the Commission open an OII or OIR to review the service quality standards, and specifically address why some carriers consistently could not or did not meet the Out-of-Service Repair or Answer Time standards in 2010, and to consider whether to adopt new standards, modify current standards and adopt penalty mechanisms.
- 8 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
2.3. Telephone Service Outage Letters to the Commission The Commission received eight letters from industry parties regarding CD’s March 2011 Report.3 All non-carrier commenters suggested that network degradation due to deferred/no maintenance was the cause of extended outages during the storms of December 2010 and January 2011, as well as AT&T and Verizon’s inability to meet the OOS repair goal in 2010. Additionally, all commenters except Verizon endorsed the opening of a rulemaking to review carrier service quality performance, while CLECs also stated there are competitive implications for poor service quality given their reliance on ILEC copper facilities. On May 2, 2011, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) submitted a letter to Commission President Michael Peevey supporting CD’s recommendation for a Service Quality OII/OIR. TURN alleged that AT&T had a long history of service outage problems in California, AT&T and Verizon have incentives to invest and maintain equipment in states that have more oversight than California, and inadequate maintenance of wireline equipment contributed to the extended duration of service outages during the storms of occurring in December 2010 and January 2011. As evidence of AT&T’s long history of service quality problems, TURN’s letter cited a complaint filed in 2001 by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates,
3 The Utility Reform Network (TURN) (5/2/11), California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL) (5/6/11), Small Business California (SB-CAL) (5/9/11), Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA) (5/9/11), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) (5/10/11), Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN) (5/13/11), Verizon California (5/18/11), and AT&T California (5/18/11).
- 9 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
currently known as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), which resulted in the Commission instituting a 29.3 hour restoral standard for initial repairs, and a $300,000 penalty for each month that AT&T did not meet the standard. In response, AT&T stated, that under the old OOS standards of 29.3 hours to repair for initial tickets, and 39.4 hours for repeat tickets, it met the standard five out of seven years for initial tickets, and seven of seven years for repeat tickets. TURN referenced in its letter the testimony given by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) at Senator Padilla’s February 4, 2011 hearing as support for its charge that AT&T and Verizon are incentivized to invest and maintain equipment in states with more oversight than California, TURN stated that since penalties were removed from performance in California, AT&T and Verizon have not met the repair time standard in any period CALTEL agreed with TURN and noted that deteriorating wireline facilities were the root of AT&T and Verizon’s inability to meet the 24-hour restoral standard, and cited as examples, two San Francisco fire-houses losing 911 connectivity due to wireline failure. AT&T countered TURN’s claim by stating that it invested $2.1 billion dollars in its wireline network during 2009 and 2010. AT&T also stated that the majority of its customers that lost service during the storms were restored within four days. Verizon stated that they have invested $600 million dollars annually for the last several years into their network and that TURN has no evidence that inadequate maintenance was a factor in outage duration during the storms, and that dissatisfied customers can choose other providers. TURN, CALTEL and DRA all provided recommendations on how the Commission can improve telephone service quality including:
- 10 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
1. Require telecommunications networks to comply with generally accepted industry performance standards (e.g., Telcordia/Bellcore standards);
2. Engage a consultant to perform engineering and operational audits of any ILECs that has an average below 60% of customer OOS or trouble reports within 24 hours during any 12-month period based on GO 133-C performance standards; and
3. Collect and publish monthly reports detailing whether ILECs have met wholesale performance standards.
4. Levy fines for failure to meet retail service quality standards. CLECs fines should take into consideration inter-dependence on ILEC performance.
5. Investigate AT&T and Verizon’s outside plant maintenance and investment practices. CALTEL additionally argued that since CLECs rely on copper facilities owned by URF ILECs, deteriorating facilities and extended out-of-service repair times negatively impact customer choice by increasing costs of CLECs through compensating customers to restore confidence in their service. If this confidence cannot be restored, it creates an anti-competitive environment by removing CLECs as a viable alternative to the URF ILECs.
3. Preliminary Scoping Memo As required by Rule 7.1(d)4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) includes a Preliminary
4 “Rulemakings. An order instituting rulemaking shall preliminarily determine the category and need for hearing and shall attach a preliminary scoping memo. The preliminary determination is not appealable, but shall be confirmed or changed by
Footnote continued on next page
- 11 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
Scoping Memo. In this Preliminary Scoping Memo, we describe the issues to be considered in this proceeding and the timetable for resolving the proceeding.
3.1. Issues Public Utilities (P.U.) Code § 451 requires that telecommunications carriers provide a level of service “…as necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons…and the public.” The Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that telephone corporations provide customer service that includes reasonable statewide service quality standards including, but not limited to, standards regarding network technical quality, customer service, installation, repair and billing. (D.09-07-019 at 12, P.U. Code § 2896.) This OIR is opened to review the performance of telecommunications corporations in meeting GO 133-C service quality performance standards in 2010-2011, and to assess whether service quality measures adopted in D. 09-07-019/GO 133-C:
• Meet the goals of the service quality measures (i.e., ensure that telecommunications carriers provide the level of service required by P.U. Code § 451);
• Provide consumers with relevant information to make informed communications service purchase decisions;
• Are relevant to today’s regulatory environment and market;
• Need additional measures and/or penalty mechanisms added; and
assigned Commissioner’s ruling pursuant to Rule 7.3, and such ruling as to the category is subject to appeal under Rule 7.6.”
- 12 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
• Should be revised to cover wholesale interconnection services as well as retail. If so, what revisions should be made? Below are the questions to help guide filings regarding the issues identified above:
1. Are the adopted GO 133-C service quality standards appropriate and reasonable? If not, should new service quality standards be adopted or should existing standards be modified or eliminated?
2. Should additional Out-of-Service standards be established for Out-of-Service events in excess of 24 hours?
3. Why are many of the URF carriers consistently missing the service quality measurement standards for (a) Out-of-Service Repairs, and (b) Answer Times?
4. The current service quality standards and measures focus on retail customers. Should standards be adopted for wholesale service? If so, what should these standards and measures be?
5. Is it appropriate to implement a penalty mechanism when standards are not met? If so, what should it be?
6. Should exemptions be allowed for calculating reported service quality results for State of Emergency, Catastrophic Events and events beyond the control of the utility management? If so, should there be limitations on the geographic area(s) covered and/or the duration of the exemption?
7. Should carriers provide the Commission with additional service quality data in the aftermath of a catastrophic event? If so, what additional data is appropriate?
8. What other reporting requirements or measures are appropriate to evaluate quality of service?
- 13 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
9. Should the Commission hire a network consultant to: a) review and evaluate the service quality results; b) to evaluate and monitor telecommunications carrier’s infrastructure, investments and manpower to improve service quality; and c) to help the Commission determine “best practices”? If so how should they be funded and who should administer the contract(s)?
10. Are competitive market forces sufficient to ensure service quality? What, if any, are the barriers to switching to other services and service providers if a customer is dissatisfied with the quality of wireline telephone service offered by their current provider?
11. How do carriers prioritize repairs between classes of customers, (e.g., retail vs. wholesale and business vs. residential) types of technologies, and types of services? Should residential service be given top priority for repair due to public safety and universal service obligations associated with residential service?
12. Is the service quality information posted at the Commission’s website sufficient to provide consumers with the relevant information to make informed communications service purchasing decisions?
13. Should the Commission adopt service quality reporting standards for Wireless carriers?
14. Are there cost-effective engineering and design standards available that would prevent or better mitigate the effects of outages due to storms and other disruptions? If so, what are they?
15. Is the wireline network designed and maintained so as to minimize the duration of outages due to catastrophic events? If not, what should be done to rectify that?
- 14 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
16. Is the wireline network being properly maintained to serve Californians and the California economy? Is wireline service in California comparable to service in other states that have penalties for failure to maintain service or incentive regulation for service quality?
17. Are there any economic, regulatory, physical, or other barriers or disincentives that stifle or discourage wireline maintenance? What are the consequences of poor wireline maintenance? What can and should be done to foster proper and timely wireline maintenance? We intend for the scope of this rulemaking to be broad, and accordingly grant the assigned Commissioner and assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discretion to revise the scope to include other relevant issues that may arise in answering these questions. This order invites parties to provide relevant information regarding the questions listed above.
3.2. Preliminary Schedule The preliminary schedule is set forth below. We delegate to the assigned Commissioner and the ALJ the authority to set other dates in the proceeding or modify those below as necessary.
Day 1 Order Instituting Rulemaking issued Day 20 Deadline for requests to be on service list Day 46 Initial Comments filed and served Day 61 Reply Comments filed and served
The determination on the need for further procedural measures, including the scheduling of a pre-hearing conference, discovery, technical workshops, and/or evidentiary hearings will be made in one or more rulings issued by the Assigned Commissioner. Any party who believes that an evidentiary hearing is required shall file a motion requesting such a hearing no later than ten business
- 15 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
days after the filing of reply comments. Any such motion must identify and describe (i) the material issues of fact, (ii) the evidence the party proposes to introduce at the requested hearing, and (iii) the schedule for conducting the hearing. Any right that a party may otherwise have to an evidentiary hearing will be waived if the party does not submit a timely motion requesting an evidentiary hearing. Following receipt of any such motions, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ shall determine the need for and extent of further procedural steps that are necessary to develop an adequate record to resolve this rulemaking, and shall issue rulings providing guidance to parties, as warranted. This proceeding will conform to the statutory case management deadline for quasi-legislative matters set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1701.5.
4. Category of Proceeding and Need for Hearing Rule 7.1(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the order instituting rulemaking “shall preliminarily determine the category and need for hearing…” This rulemaking is preliminarily determined to be quasi-legislative, as that term is defined in Rule 1.3(d). We anticipate that the issues in this proceeding may be resolved through a combination of filed comments and workshops. It is preliminarily determined that hearings are not necessary. Any person who objects to the preliminary categorization of this OIR as “quasi-legislative” or to the preliminary hearing determination, shall state the objections in their opening comments. The assigned Commissioner will determine the need for hearing and will make a final category determination in the scoping memo; this final determination as to category is subject to appeal as specified in Rule 7.6(a).
- 16 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
5. Service of OIR, Creation of Service List, and Subscription Service We will serve this OIR on all telecommunications corporations including commercial mobile radio service providers and on the following: • The service list in R.02-12-004; and
• Organizations listed in Attachment B.5
Such service of the OIR does not confer party status in this proceeding upon any person or entity, and does not result in that person or entity is being placed on the service list for this proceeding. The Commission will create an official service list for this proceeding, which will be available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists. We anticipate that the official service list will be posted before the first filing deadline in this proceeding. Before serving documents at any time during this proceeding, parties shall ensure they are using the most up-to-date official service list by checking the Commission’s website prior to each service date. While all telephone corporations may be bound by the outcome of this proceeding, only those who notify us that they wish to be on the service list will be accorded service by others until a final decision is issued. If you want to participate in the Rulemaking or simply to monitor it, follow the procedures set forth below. To ensure you receive all documents, send your request within 20 days after the OIR is published. The Commission’s Process Office will update the official service list on the Commission’s website as necessary.
5 The organizations listed in Attachment B are those that submitted responses to the March 2011 Staff Report.
- 17 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
Within 20 days of the publication of this OIR, any person may ask to be added to the official service list. Send your request to the Process Office. You may use e-mail ([email protected]) or letter (Process Office, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102). Include the following information: • Docket Number of this Investigation & Rulemaking;
• Name (and party represented, if applicable);
• Postal Address;
• Telephone Number;
• E-mail Address; and
• Desired Status (Party, State Service, or Information Only).6
If you want to be added to the official service list as a non-party (that is, as State Service or Information Only), follow the instructions in Section 6.1. [NOTE: edit if the section number changes] above at any time.
5.1. Updating Information Once you are on the official service list, you must ensure that the information you have provided is up-to-date. To change your postal address, telephone number, e-mail address, or the name of your representative, send the change to the Process Office by letter or e-mail, and send a copy to everyone on the official service list.
6 If you want to file comments or otherwise actively participate, choose “Party” status. If you do not want to actively participate but want to follow events and filings as they occur, choose “State Service” status if you are an employee of the State of California; otherwise, choose “Information Only” status.
- 18 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
5.2. Serving and Filing Documents When you serve a document, use the official service list published at the Commission’s website as of the date of service. You must comply with Rules 1.9 and 1.10 when you serve a document to be filed with the Commission’s Docket Office. The Commission encourages electronic filing and e-mail service in this Rulemaking. You may find information about electronic filing at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/efiling. E-mail service is governed by Rule 1.10. If you use e-mail service, you must also provide a paper copy to the assigned Commissioner and ALJ. The electronic copy should be in Microsoft Word or Excel formats to the extent possible. The paper copy should be double-sided. E-mail service of documents must occur no later than 5:00 p.m. on the date that service is scheduled to occur. If you have questions about the Commission’s filing and service procedures, contact the Docket Office.
5.3. Subscription Service This proceeding can also be monitored by subscribing in order to receive electronic copies of documents in this proceeding that are published on the Commission’s website. There is no need to be on the service list in order to use the subscription service. Instructions for enrolling in the subscription service are available on the Commission’s website at http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/.
6. Public Advisor Any person or entity interested in participating in this Rulemaking who is unfamiliar with the Commission’s procedures should contact the Commission’s Public Advisor in San Francisco at (415) 703-2074 or (866) 849-8390 or e-mail [email protected]; or in Los Angeles at (213) 576-7055 or
- 19 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
(866) 849-8391, or e-mail [email protected]. The TYY number is (866) 836-7825.
7. Intervenor Compensation Any party that expects to claim intervenor compensation for its participation in this Rulemaking shall file its notice of intent to claim intervenor compensation no later than 30 days after the first prehearing conference or pursuant to a date set forth in a later ruling which may be issued by the assigned Commissioner or assigned ALJ.
8. Ex parte Communications Pursuant to Rule 8.3(a), ex parte communications will be allowed in this quasi-legislative proceeding without restriction or reporting requirement.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. A Rulemaking is instituted on the Commission’s own motion to address the service quality performance of telecommunications corporations and to determine whether modifications to service quality standards are appropriate and, if so, what those should be. 2. The issues to be initially considered in this proceeding are set forth in the body of this order and the Preliminary Scoping Memo. 3. The schedule for this rulemaking is as set forth in the body of this order. 4. The assigned Commissioner or assigned Administrative Law Judge may adjust the schedule and refine the scope of the proceeding as needed. 5. This rulemaking is preliminarily determined to be quasi-legislative, as that term is defined in Rule 1.3(d). It is preliminarily determined that evidentiary hearings are not needed in this proceeding. Any persons objecting to the preliminary categorization of rulemaking as “quasi-legislative” or to the
- 20 - R.11-12-001 ALJ/PSW/gd2
preliminary determination that evidentiary hearings are not necessary shall state their objections in their opening comments. 6. The Executive Director shall cause this Order Instituting Rulemaking to be served on all telecommunications corporations, including commercial mobile radio service providers and on the following:
• The service list for Rulemaking 02-12-004; and
• Organizations listed in Attachment B.
7. Interested persons shall follow the directions in the body of this Order Instituting Rulemaking to become a party or be placed on the official service list. 8. Any party that expects to request intervenor compensation for its participation in this rulemaking shall file its notice of intent to claim intervenor compensation in accordance with Rule 17.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, no later than 30 days after the first prehearing conference or pursuant to a date set forth in a later ruling which may be issued by the assigned Commissioner or assigned Administrative Law Judge. This order is effective today. Dated December 1, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY President TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON MICHEL PETER FLORIO CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL MARK J. FERRON Commissioners
R1112001 Attachments A-B
- 21 - EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
In the Matter of the Commission’s Inquiry Into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service Over Case No. 9123 Fiber Optic Facilities
Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist
On Behalf of the
Maryland Office of People’s Counsel
PUBLIC VERSION
June 19, 2008
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION OF WITNESS...... 1 3 4 II. PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY...... 3 5 6 III. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 7 8 IV. VERIZON MARYLAND’S PROVISION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE TELEPHONE 9 SERVICE OVER FIBER OPTIC FACILITIES...... 11 10 11 V. VERIZON’S FIOS INSTALLATION PROCESS AND MIGRATION OF VOICE 12 TELEPHONE SERVICE TO FIBER...... 12 13 14 Verizon routinely migrates the existing regulated voice telephone services of Maryland 15 consumers to the FTTP network when those customers place an order for unregulated 16 FiOS Internet and/or TV services...... 12 17 18 VI. VERIZON’S CUSTOMER NOTICE AND CONSENT PROCEDURES FOR 19 VOICE MIGRATION TO FIBER...... 33 20 21 Verizon has applied inadequate procedures for customer notice and consent in 22 connection with its policy of routinely migrating the existing voice telephone services 23 of Maryland consumers to the FTTP network when those customers place an order for 24 unregulated FiOS Internet and/or TV services...... 33 25 26 VII. VERIZON’S TREATMENT OF ITS COPPER DROP FACILITIES DURING FIOS 27 INSTALLATIONS, AND THEIR COMPETITIVE IMPACTS...... 61 28 29 Verizon’s wholesale service ordering mechanisms do not adequately account for the 30 Company’s disconnection of copper drop facilities during a FiOS installation, which 31 creates adverse and anticompetitive impacts on CLECs attempting to order a copper 32 UNE loop for consumers that have been migrated to the FTTP network...... 61 33 34 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 75 35 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1
2 I. INTRODUCTION OF WITNESS 3
4 Q. Please state your name and business address.
5 A. My name is Scott C. Lundquist. My business address is QSI Consulting, 53
6 Cottage St., Natick, Massachusetts 01760.
7
8 Q. Have you previously appeared as an expert witness before the Maryland
9 Public Service Commission (“Commission”)?
10 A. Yes. In 2001, I testified on behalf of OPC in Case No. 8879, Re: Investigation
11 into Rates for Unbundled Network Elements Pursuant to the Telecommunications
12 Act of 1996, which addressed the recurring cost studies prepared by Verizon
13 Maryland for its unbundled network element (“UNE”) offerings.
14
15 Q. What is QSI Consulting, Inc. and what is your position with the firm?
16 A. QSI Consulting, Inc. (“QSI”) is a consulting firm specializing in litigation and
17 regulatory support, business case analysis, and modeling in telecommunications
18 and other utility industries. QSI's consultants provide services to a wide array of
19 clients, including state regulatory commissions, state agencies and legislatures,
20 telecommunications companies (landline, wireless and cable companies), and law
21 firms. I serve as a Consultant to QSI.
22
23
24
1 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 Q. Please describe your professional experience and education.
2 A. I have prepared a summary of my professional experience and education, which is
3 provided in Appendix 1 attached to this testimony.
2 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1
2 II. PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 3 4 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
5 A. QSI has been engaged by OPC to assist in the investigation of certain policies and
6 practices of Verizon Maryland Inc. (“Verizon Maryland,” “Verizon,” or “the
7 Company”) pertaining to its provisioning of regulated voice telephone services in
8 Maryland, over its advanced fiber-to-the-premises (“FTTP”) network commonly
9 referred to as “FiOS” (Fiber Optic Service).1 My testimony sets forth my
10 assessments and recommendations to the Commission based on the information
11 obtained thus far, via discovery and independent research. To the extent necessary
12 OPC may further address issues subject to this investigation based on the
13 testimony submissions of other parties in its rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony.
1 More precisely, FiOS is Verizon’s brand for marketing the Internet Access and other services provided over the FTTP network. However, in its 2007 Annual Report, Verizon has used the term FiOS to refer to the FTTP network as well as the services delivered over that network, and occasionally I will do the same in my testimony for convenience.
3 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1
2 III. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
4 Q. Please summarize your testimony and recommendations.
5 A. The Commission opened this proceeding in response to OPC’s August 9, 2007
6 Petition seeking an investigation of Verizon’s practices and procedures
7 concerning the provisioning local exchange telephone service over fiber optic
8 facilities. In that Petition, OPC raised concerns about Verizon’s conversion of
9 residential consumers’ regulated voice telephone service from copper to fiber
10 optic facilities in the course of Verizon’s satisfying consumers’ requests to obtain
11 FiOS Internet service, which is an unregulated, non-telecommunications service
12 provided by the Verizon affiliate, Verizon Online. My testimony presents the
13 results of OPC’s investigation to date, including my preliminary assessments and
14 recommendations to the Commission.
15
16 As an initial matter, it is clear that Verizon views its FiOS Internet service, as well
17 as its newer FiOS TV service, as important growth markets. From a strategic
18 perspective, Verizon considers its FiOS/FTTP network deployment as a key
19 element in an on-going transformation of its wireline services business. As the
20 scale and customer volumes of the FTTP network increase over time, Verizon
21 anticipates that the FTTP network will eventually produce lower per-unit
22 operating costs than the traditional network. As part of this transformation,
23 Verizon intends to expand its use of the FTTP network to provide its wireline
24 voice telephone services. However, instead of marketing an FTTP-based voice
4 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 telephone product to its customers as a technologically-advanced alternative to
2 traditional telephone service, Verizon has elected to migrate its voice customers
3 over to FTTP on what can be characterized as a “stealth” basis: within its existing
4 tariffs and prices, on a customer-by-customer basis, and – as I explain at length in
5 my testimony – without sufficient notice and disclosure to the affected customers
6 that their voice service is being migrated. To this end, Verizon routinely migrates
7 the voice telephone service of consumers who purchase its FiOS services onto its
8 FTTP network. Even customers who have elected to try FiOS Internet service on
9 a “thirty-day money-back guarantee” basis have had their voice service
10 permanently reconfigured to the FTTP network. Verizon also migrates certain
11 customers to the FTTP network as part of a targeted program where Verizon
12 considers it more cost effective than to repair existing copper facilities..
13
14 Once a Maryland residential customer’s voice line has been migrated to the FTTP
15 network, it has been altered in several significant respects, including:
16 17 (1) Their service has been moved from a copper drop line to a fiber drop line;
18 (2) Certain telephones and other customer-premises equipment (“CPE”), such
19 as security and fire alarm monitoring devices, that were connected via the
20 copper line, may not work properly with the FTTP network.
21 (3) Their telephone service has been converted from Verizon-supplied
22 electrical power to customer-provided power, which is subject to any
23 commercial power interruptions the customer may experience; and
5 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 (4) The customer is now responsible for monitoring the status of the battery in
2 the battery back-up unit (“BBU”) and replacing it when necessary.
3
4 Moreover, once the copper drop has been disconnected, the customer can no
5 longer order Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”)-based broadband Internet access
6 services, either those offered by Verizon or its competitors. While DSL services
7 are not regulated by the Commission, they remain one of the most-used forms of
8 broadband Internet access.
9
10 From a consumer protection perspective, the most troubling aspect of Verizon’s
11 voice migration to FTTP practices is that it is generally failing to adequately
12 inform customers about the migration and its consequences. Verizon contends
13 that FiOS customers receive “abundant” notification of voice migration to FTTP,
14 and points to the fact that it provides numerous statements in a variety of media,
15 including webpages on the Verizon.com website, hardcopy materials delivered to
16 customers’ homes, and during verbal interactions with Verizon customer service
17 personnel and technicians, that address certain aspects of migration. However, as
18 I demonstrate through a detailed review and analysis of these various forms of
19 customer communication, those disclosures, where they occur at all, generally fall
20 well short of what is needed to ensure that consumers are receiving clear and
21 conspicuous notice concerning voice migration to FTTP and its impacts. Later in
22 my testimony, I present a model disclosure statement that would provide adequate
23 customer notice of Verizon’s voice migration policy, provided that the notice was
6 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 displayed prominently within Verizon’s FiOS advertising and ordering documents
2 and webpages.
3
4 OPC’s investigation has also made it clear that Verizon generally is not obtaining
5 a customer’s informed consent before proceeding with the voice migration to
6 FTTP. Apart from the insufficient disclosures issue (which in itself limits the
7 degree to which “informed” consent can be obtained), Verizon does not seek a
8 customer’s written authorization for voice migration, and in most ordering sales
9 channels, it does not obtain any other verifiable form of customer consent, such as
10 having the customer initial next to an acknowledgment of a voice migration
11 disclosure statement. Similarly, Verizon does not appear to obtain any specific,
12 overt consent to voice migration when a customer orders a FiOS service via a
13 telephone call to a Verizon service center.
14
15 My preliminary conclusion is that there are several steps that the Commission
16 should take to ensure that Maryland consumers can make fully informed choices
17 and are not harmed by Verizon’s policy of migrating its voice customers to the
18 FTTP network whenever they order a FiOS service.
19
20 First, the Commission should direct Verizon to modify its customer notifications
21 and disclosures concerning voice migrations to FTTP, so that all customers are
22 made fully aware that this change is taken place and realize the consequences of
23 that change to their voice services. To that end, I recommend that the
7 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 Commission require Verizon to post the model customer notification that I
2 present in this testimony in prominent positions within each of the webpages and
3 on documents that Maryland consumers will typically review in the course of
4 making a decision whether to purchase a FiOS service. In addition, I recommend
5 that Verizon repeat that notification in the customer’s first telephone bill sent after
6 the voice migration, e.g. via a bill insert.
7
8 Second, after ensuring that its customers are fully informed about the voice
9 migration process, Verizon should be required to obtain verifiable consent from
10 consumers to migrate their voice telephone service to fiber facilities. For online
11 orders and any written forms used by Verizon or its sales agents, consumers
12 should be asked whether they understand and consent to the migration of their
13 voice telephone services to the FTTP network, as explained in the model
14 customer disclosure statement, and provide verifiable consent in the form of
15 written initials (for hardcopy forms) or checking off an appropriate box (for on-
16 line forms). For telephone orders, after being informed of the change by the
17 Verizon representative during the call, consumers should be explicitly asked
18 whether they consent to the migration of their voice telephone service to the
19 FTTP network.
20
21 OPC has also investigated the potential anticompetitive impacts of Verizon’s
22 FiOS installation procedures, that primarily have to do with the disposition of the
23 copper “drop” (i.e., the wire running from Verizon’s street-level network, into the
8 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 customer’s premises). We have confirmed that up until October 2007, Verizon’s
2 former practice during FiOS installations in Maryland was to entirely remove the
3 copper drop if it was aerial, and disconnect it and keep it in place if it was buried.
4 Since that time, Verizon has disconnected, but retained in place, both aerial and
5 copper drops, when it performs a FiOS installation and associated voice migration
6 to FTTP in Maryland.
7
8 Once disconnected, those copper drops are no longer an active component of the
9 network, and are not subject to any on-going monitoring or maintenance by
10 Verizon. However, they do appear to remain available for future re-connection
11 and re-use, upon a consumer’s request to obtain a copper UNE-based voice
12 service from a CLEC, for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, my
13 conclusion is that Verizon’s current copper drop procedures do not equate to a
14 “retirement” of copper facilities. Moreover, there does not appear to be a
15 compelling need for the Commission to adopt any new rules concerning
16 Verizon’s copper facilities retirements at this time. However, the Commission
17 should continue to monitor Verizon’s treatment of copper facilities that are
18 disconnected due to FiOS service installations, and stand ready to take action if
19 Verizon begins to retire such plant in a manner that adversely impacts Maryland
20 consumers’ ability to obtain regulated telecommunications services.
21
22 We have confirmed that Verizon does not impose any charges on either
23 consumers or competitive service providers (“CLECs”) when it needs to re-
9 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 connect a copper drop (and thus, restore a working copper loop), in the event that
2 a customer who has been migrated to FTTP wishes to obtain voice service from a
3 CLEC. However, the absence of a connected copper loop after a FiOS
4 installation causes a more complicated ordering and provisioning process to ensue
5 in that situation, compared to the stream-lined processes that can take place if the
6 consumer has remained connected to the Verizon POTS network via a copper
7 loop (and drop). Specifically, the CLEC has to submit at least two “Local Service
8 Requests” (i.e., wholesale orders) to Verizon – one to request re-connection of the
9 copper loop, and a second to migrate the customer (via the hot-cut and number
10 porting) – while Verizon must dispatch a technician to the customer’s home to
11 physically re-connect the copper loop. These extra procedures increase the
12 CLEC’s transaction costs, and could cause the residential consumer to experience
13 a delay in their requested changeover of service to the CLEC, compared to the
14 time it would have taken had Verizon not previously migrated the customer’s
15 voice service to the FTTP network. The consumer may attribute that delay to the
16 CLEC, tarnishing the new customer relationship and the customer’s confidence in
17 competitive carriers’ ability to provide telephone service comparable to Verizon.
18 To the extent that the CLECs participating in this case supply evidence to show
19 that the “two LSR” issue is a significant problem in Maryland, the Commission
20 may wish to direct Verizon to work with the CLECs to find a workaround
21 solution to minimize any delay to consumers seeking to obtain a competitive local
22 telephone service.
23
10 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 IV. VERIZON MARYLAND’S PROVISION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE 2 TELEPHONE SERVICE OVER FIBER OPTIC FACILITIES 3 4 Q. What has prompted the Commission to open this proceeding?
5 A. The Commission opened this proceeding in response to OPC’s August 9, 2007
6 petition to the Commission2 seeking an investigation of Verizon’s practices and
7 procedures concerning the provisioning of local exchange telephone service over
8 fiber optic facilities. In that Petition, OPC raised concerns about Verizon’s
9 conversion of residential consumers’ regulated voice telephone service from
10 copper to fiber optic facilities in the course of Verizon’s satisfying consumers’
11 requests to obtain FiOS Internet service, which is an unregulated, non-
12 telecommunications service provided by the Verizon affiliate, Verizon Online.3
13 On August 31, 2007, Verizon filed a Response and Motion to Dismiss to OPC’s
14 Petition4 that attempted to rebut many of OPC’s assertions. In reply to Verizon’s
15 Response and Motion to Dismiss, OPC filed a comprehensive response to
16 Verizon,5 that supplied further support for OPC’s request for a full investigation
17 and evidentiary hearings. After reviewing and considering these filings, the
2 Request of the Office of People’s Counsel for an Investigation into Verizon Maryland Inc’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service over Fiber Optic Facilities, August 9, 2007 (“OPC Petition”). 3 While the OPC petition focused on FiOS Internet service, the same issues arise in connection with the installation of Verizon’s FiOS TV service, which also an unregulated service provided by a Verizon Affiliate. 4 Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Response to the Request of the Office of People’s Counsel for an Investigation into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service over Fiber Optic Facilities, August 31, 2007 (“Verizon’s Response to OPC’s Petition”). 5 Office of the People’s Counsel Response to Verizon-Maryland Inc.’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss to the Request of the Office of the People’s Counsel for an Investigation into Verizon Maryland Inc’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service over Fiber Optic Facilities, September 14, 2007 (“OPC’s Response to Verizon”).
11 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 Commission issued a letter on October 24, 2007 that docketed OPC’s request as
2 Case No. 9123, and delegated the authority to conduct proceedings to the
3 Commission’s Hearing Examiner Division. On November 16, 2007, Verizon
4 filed a Reply Memorandum seeking to respond to OPC’s September 14th filing.6
5
6 V. VERIZON’S FIOS INSTALLATION PROCESS AND MIGRATION OF 7 VOICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO FIBER 8 9 Verizon routinely migrates the existing regulated voice telephone services of 10 Maryland consumers to the FTTP network when those customers place an order for 11 unregulated FiOS Internet and/or TV services. 12
13 Q. Mr. Lundquist, can you provide a brief overview of Verizon’s “FiOS”
14 services and the fiber-to-the-premises deployment program that underlies
15 them?
16 A. Yes. “FiOS” is Verizon’s brand name for certain fiber optic-based services7 that
17 are delivered over the fiber-to-the-premises (“FTTP”) network that it has been
18 deploying on a nationwide basis since 2004.8 Verizon’s current FiOS services are
19 as follows:
20 x FiOS Internet Service. This provides high-speed digital connections for
21 computer access to the Internet, and is offered in both residential and
6 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Reply to the Office of People’s Counsel’s (“OPC”) Response to Verizon’s Response to the Request of the Office of People’s Counsel for an Investigation into Verizon Maryland Inc.’s Provision of Local Exchange Telephone Service Over Fiber Optic Facilities, November 16, 2007 (“Reply Memorandum”). 7 Hence FiOS, Fiber Optic Service. 8 In its 2007 Annual Report, Verizon has used the term FiOS to refer to the FTTP network as well as the services delivered over that network, and occasionally I will do the same in my testimony for convenience.
12 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 business versions. The residential service is offered in a variety of speed
2 and pricing packages that Verizon may change from time to time –
3 currently, Verizon offers four service packages ranging from 5 Mpbs/2
4 Mbps at $42.99 per month, up to 30 Mbps/15 Mbps at $139.95 per
5 month.9 In Maryland as elsewhere in Verizon’s territory, FiOS Internet
6 service is not available ubiquitously, but rather is being made available as
7 the FTTP network is rolled out. This service is not regulated by the
8 Commission or the FCC, and generally competes with other forms of
9 Internet access that include digital subscriber line (“DSL”) services
10 offered by Verizon and other providers, cable modem services, and
11 wireless ISP (“WISP”) services, among others.
12 x FiOS TV Service. This provides digital broadcast television, both in
13 traditional NTSC format and high-definition HDTV format, as well on-
14 demand pay-per-view (“PPV”) and digital video recording (“DVR”)
15 capabilities. The core service, FiOS TV Premier, is currently offered at
16 $47.99 per month, but additional charges apply for such items as the set-
17 top box, DVR, and premium channels.10 This service is not regulated by
9 Speeds are expressed in terms of typical download / upload speeds (e.g., 5 Mbps downstream / 2 Mbps upstream); the prices indicated are under annual plans, other pricing plans are also available. See Verizon FiOS “Packages and Prices” webpage, http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm (accessed 5/28/08). I have reproduced this webpage in my Exhibit SCL-1. 10 See the Verizon webpage “Verizon FiOS TV – Packages and Prices,” http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm (accessed 5/31/08). This webpage is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-2.
13 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 the Commission, but is subject to FCC regulation, as well as local
2 franchising requirements in many areas.11
3 x FTTP-based voice telephone service. Central to this proceeding is the
4 fact that Verizon is increasingly using the FTTP network to provide its
5 wireline voice telephone services. According to Verizon, it does not
6 advertise, market, or sell voice service provided via the FTTP-network
7 under the FiOS brand, and FTTP-based voice telephone service is not
8 available on a standalone basis.12 Instead Verizon views its FTTP based
9 voice telephone service as an alternative arrangement for furnishing the
10 voice telephone services offered out of its existing local exchange services
11 tariffs.13 Pursuant to this view, Verizon automatically migrates the voice
12 telephone service of consumers who purchase its FiOS services to its
13 FTTP network.14 Verizon also has a targeted program to migrate certain
14 customers to voice-only service on its FTTP network, where Verizon
15 considers it more cost effective than repair existing copper facilities that
16 may be malfunctioning..15 These services are, of course, regulated by the
17 Commission.
18
11 See, e.g., Verizon’s discussion of franchising in page 34 of the Verizon Communications Inc. 2007 Annual Report, which is provided in my Exhibit SCL-3. 12 Verizon’s Response to OPC’s Petition, at paras. 1 and 16. 13 Id., at paras. 1-2. 14 See OPC Petition at 6; see also OPC’s Response to Verizon at 7. 15 See Verizon’s Response to OPC’s Petition at para. 14.
14 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 In its 2007 Annual Report, Verizon reported that on a nation-wide basis, its FTTP
2 network passes more than 9.3-million homes, and serves some 1.5-million FiOS
3 Internet customers and 943,000 FiOS TV customers.16 Verizon claims
4 penetration rates of 20.6% and 16.0% for FiOS Internet and FiOS TV,
5 respectively, “across the markets where we have been selling those services.”17
6
7 Most importantly, Verizon has enjoyed rapid growth rates for both services: in
8 2007 alone, Verizon acquired some 854,000 FiOS Internet subscribers,
9 comprising over half (57%) of its total FiOS Internet customers; and 736,000
10 FiOS TV customers, over three-quarters (78%) of that customer base.18 These
11 growth rates are particularly striking when viewed relative to the 0.8% decrease
12 Verizon reported in traditional wireline services revenue in 2007, which Verizon
13 claims was “primarily driven by lower demand and usage of our basic local
14 exchange and accompanying services.”
15
16 Not only does Verizon view its FiOS services as important growth markets, it also
17 expects the FTTP network to eventually produce lower per-unit operating costs:
18 With our deployment of the FiOS network, we expect to realize savings 19 in annual, ongoing operating expenses as a result of efficiencies gained 20 from fiber network facilities. As the deployment of the FiOS network
16 Verizon Communications, Inc. 2007 Annual Report (print version), at pages 18 and 24. The 2007 Annual Report was downloaded from http://investor.verizon.com/financial/annual/2007/download.html on 5/31/08. 17 Id., at page 24. 18 Id.
15 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 gains scale and installation and automation improvements occur, costs 2 per home connected are expected to decline.19 3
4 From a strategic perspective, Verizon considers its FiOS/FTTP network
5 deployment as a key element in an on-going transformation of its wireline
6 services business.20 As expressed in a proprietary 2007 Verizon Method &
7 Procedure Release (“M&P”) document:
8 <
18 It is too early to tell how successful Verizon ultimately will be in pursuing the
19 FiOS/FTTP network strategy. However, as I shall address at length in my
20 testimony, it is clear that certain Verizon policies and practices arising from this
21 strategy are having adverse impacts on consumers, and need to be addressed by
22 the Commission. In order to understand these issues clearly, we need to review
23 the details of the FiOS installation process, to which I now turn.
24
19 Id., at page 18. 20 See, e.g., the “Chairman’s Letter to Shareholders” that prefaces Verizon’s 2007 Annual Report. 21 “Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper” Document No. 2006-00804-MDP, Issue D, Issue Date 5/15/06, Revised Date 10/11/2007 (Bates Nos. 000001-000004), (hereafter, “Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper M&P”), at page 2 (Bates No. 000002). Verizon provided this document as an attachment to its December 21, 2007 Supplemental Response to “Intervenors” [Covad and XO’s] Data Request 1-37. I have provided this document in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-4.
16 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 Q. Can you summarize the installation process that Verizon currently
2 undertakes when a Maryland residential customer asks to subscribe to
3 Verizon’s FiOS Internet and/or TV service?
4 A. Yes. Verizon has described the FiOS installation process in publicly-available
5 materials on its website, as well as in public and certain allegedly proprietary
22 6 documents supplied in response to discovery by OPC and other parties. My
7 understanding of the key elements of that process, as expressed in Verizon's
8 public descriptions, is as follows:23
9 x Install a fiber drop line. A prerequisite to any FiOS installation is the
10 placement of a fiber optic cable “drop” line from the street to the
11 customer’s premises (i.e., house or apartment); the fiber drop may be
12 either buried below-ground or an overhead wire (“aerial”), and is
13 ordinarily routed along the same path as the existing copper drop line.
14 Ordinarily, the fiber drop is installed a few days prior to the premises visit
15 by the Verizon technician to install the FiOS service.
22 See, e.g., Verizon FiOS Internet Service Guide, supplied as an attachment to Verizon Response to Staff Data Request 1-21 (Bates Nos. 000017-000033); Verizon webpage “Verizon FiOS Internet FAQs: Installation,” http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/faqs/faqs.htm (accessed May 28, 2008); and Verizon webpage “Verizon FiOS Internet Installation,” http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/about+installation/about+installation.htm (accessed May 28, 2008). These documents are reproduced in my Exhibits SCL-5, SCL-6, and SCL-7, respectively. The FiOS installation process is defined in detail in the Method & Procedure Release “FiOS Voice and Data Installation Process for I&M Technicians,” Doc. No. 2006-00844-MDP, Issue E, Issue Date 10/19/07 (hereafter, “FiOS Voice and Data Installation M&P”). Verizon provided this document as an attachment to Verizon Response to OPC 2-15 (Bates Nos. 000400 – 000544). It is reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-8. 23 This description assumes that the customer’s premises has not already been connected to the FTTP network. If a customer already subscribes to one FiOS service and orders another, then the FTTP network installation steps will already have occurred and will not be repeated.
17 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 x Disconnect the copper drop line. When the technician installs the fiber
2 drop, he/she also disconnects the customer’s existing copper drop line
3 from the Network Interface Device (“NID”).24 In Maryland, Verizon’s
4 current practice is to leave the copper drop in place, unused, indefinitely.25
5 Later in my testimony, I will address Verizon’s copper drop-related
6 practices in more detail.
7 x Install an ONT. On the actual day of the FiOS installation, the Verizon
8 technician places an Optical Network Terminal (“ONT”) onto either the
9 outside or the inside of the customer’s house. The ONT contains the
10 termination of the fiber drop, and converts the light-encoded data signals
11 transmitted within Verizon’s fiber optic network to the electrical signals
12 transmitted via the home’s inside wiring to the customer’s telephone(s)
13 and/or personal computer(s). For voice service, the ONT replaces the
14 traditional NID. The ONT is plugged into an ordinary indoor electrical
15 outlet and draws a small amount of electrical power from the customer’s
16 power source. It also contains a Battery Backup Unit (“BBU”) which is
17 intended to provide a limited-duration alternative power source in the
18 event that the customer’s commercial electrical power is interrupted.
19 x Assess/install inside wiring. The technician will evaluate the customer’s
20 existing inside wiring (“ISW”) for its suitability to use with the FiOS
24 The NID is a small passive device that connects the copper drop to the customer’s inside wiring. 25 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 2-16. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL- 9.
18 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 service, and can install new inside wiring (coaxial or CAT5) from the
2 ONT to the router or (for FiOS TV) set-top box. The technician will also
3 install any wall jacks that may be required.
4 x Set-up and activate the service. When a customer has ordered Verizon
5 FiOS Internet service, the technician will install and configure a Verizon
6 Online-provided router, connect and configure the customer’s primary
7 computer (and additional computers, at extra cost), and activate the FiOS
8 Internet service. For a FiOS TV installation, the technician will connect
9 up to three televisions, install the set-top boxes, and program the FiOS TV
10 remote control.
11 x Migrate the customer’s voice service to the FTTP network. As part of the
12 routine procedures prescribed by Verizon, the technician will also
13 “migrate” (i.e., move) the customer’s voice telephone service from the
14 prior copper drop line, onto the FTTP network. If the customer has
15 multiple voice [telephone lines] billed to their Verizon account, then all
16 lines will be migrated.26 As I shall explain later in my testimony, the
17 customer is not presented with a choice concerning whether to have those
18 services migrated to FTTP. Moreover, these are regulated services
19 provided by Verizon, that are being impacted by the customer’s decision
20 to order one or more non-regulated services from Verizon’s affiliate (e.g.,
21 Verizon OnLine).
26 However, if a customer has a voice service provided by a CLEC via a Verizon wholesale service (e.g., unbundled copper loop), the customer’s copper drop will remain connected and that voice service will not be migrated.
19 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1
2 Q. How is the customer’s voice telephone service affected by its migration to the
3 FTTP network?
4 A. From the customer’s point of view, there are several consequences resulting from
5 the migration of their telephone service(s) to the FTTP network:
6 (1) Their service has been moved from a copper drop line to a fiber drop line;
7 (2) Certain telephones and other customer-premises equipment (“CPE”), such
8 as security and fire alarm monitoring devices, that were connected via the
9 copper line, may not work properly with the FTTP network.
10 (3) Their telephone service has been converted from Verizon-supplied
11 electrical power to customer-provided power, which is subject to any
12 commercial power interruptions the customer may experience;
13 (4) The customer is now responsible for monitoring the status of the battery in
14 the BBU and replacing it when necessary.
15
16 Q. Does the disconnection of the copper drop also affect the customer’s ability to
17 obtain other services?
18 A. Yes, it does. Once the copper drop has been disconnected, the customer can no
19 longer order Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”)-based broadband Internet access
20 services, either those offered by Verizon or its competitors. While DSL services
21 are not regulated by the Commission, they remain one of the most-used forms of
22 broadband Internet access.
23
20 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 Q. In the event of a commercial power outage, how long will the Battery Backup
2 Unit be able to provide backup power to allow an affected customer to place
3 and receive telephone calls?
4 A. According to Verizon, the duration over which the Battery Backup Unit (“BBU”)
5 can supply electrical power to support voice telephone service will vary
6 depending upon operating conditions. Verizon states that:
7 …four (4) hours was the lower operating extreme for the BBU under 8 extremely cold conditions (e.g., [F]20 degrees Celsius or lower). At the 9 other extreme, the BBU can support voice service for as many as 11 10 hours under normal operating conditions; however, the BBU generally is 11 expected last eight (8) hours. As Verizon gained experience with FiOS 12 and the BBU, Verizon determined that it could rely upon the eight-hour 13 support time under normal operating conditions as the standard support 14 time for the BBU.27 15 16 However, the “support time” refers to potential use of the telephone (including
17 time when the telephone is “on-hook” and not being used), rather than the time
18 available for actual calling/receiving calls (“talk time”), which can be
19 significantly shorter. According to one Verizon Maryland customer, who happens
20 to be a telecommunications consultant, the support time in actual experience is six
21 hours, with less available talk time.28
22
23 Q. Are calls to emergency E-911 services subject to the limits of the battery
24 backup power, in the same way that ordinary telephone calls are?
27 Verizon Response to Staff Data Request No. 2-1. This response, including Verizon’s attached “proprietary document” is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-10 (public response) and Proprietary Exhibit SCL-11, respectively. 28 March 12, 2008 Declaration of Robert Loube. I have reproduced Dr. Loube’s Declaration in my Exhibit SCL-12.
21 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123
1 A. Yes, they certainly are. If a commercial power outage lasts longer than the span
2 over which the BBU’s battery can support voice calls, than the customer will lose
3 the ability to make emergency E-911 calls as well as other voice calls. This is an
4 important distinction from ordinary copper-based POTS telephone service, which
5 is powered by the telephone company, and thus remains able to receive and place
6 voice calls, including calls to E-911 during emergencies, in the event that a
7 customer loses their commercial power.
8
9 Q. Has Verizon admitted that its policy and practice is to migrate its customers’
10 existing voice telephone services to the FTTP network, whenever customers
11 order FiOS Internet and/or FiOS TV service?
12 A. Yes. For example, in response to OPC discovery, Verizon said the following: 13 14 Verizon states that residential customers who subscribe to FiOS Internet 15 or TV and whose existing voice service is provisioned over copper will 16 have their voice service migrated to the FTTP network.29 17
18 Indeed, in the quotation from the 2007 Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper
19 M&P document I referenced earlier in my testimony, Verizon characterizes the
20 voice migration as < 21 “When a Customer orders FiOS Data or Video service, the Customer’s Voice 22 lines are also automatically provisioned over FTTP using the same advanced fiber 23 network.” (Emphasis added) END PROPRIETARY>> This confirms 24 statements by OPC in its initial request for investigation filings that consumers are 29 Verizon’s Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-1. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-13. 22 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 being automatically migrated to fiber facilities.30 A review of Verizon’s other 2 M&P document that < 3 process also confirms the automatic, essentially mandatory nature of the voice 4 migration: nowhere in the customer contact instructions is the technician directed 5 to present the customer a choice between keeping their Verizon voice services on 6 copper or migrating them to the FTTP network END PROPRIETARY>>.31 7 8 Q. Could a Verizon customer who ordered a FiOS service refuse to have their 9 voice service migrated to the FTTP network? 10 11 A. As a practical matter, it appears extremely difficult for a customer to do that, not 12 only because the customer is not afforded an explicit choice about migration, but 13 also because – as I shall explain at length later in my testimony – Verizon 14 generally fails to properly disclose the voice migration process and its 15 consequences, so that its customers would not be in a position to make an 16 informed decision. 17 18 Moreover, as Verizon characterizes its response to that situation, it would not 19 simply accept a customer’s request to forego migration and keep their voice 30 OPC Petition at 6; OPC’s Response to Verizon at 7 (“Verizon does not deny that when consumers order the unregulated FiOS Internet or TV services of its affiliate, in conjunction with the installation of those services via fiber facilities, the regulated voice service of existing customers is automatically switched from copper facilities to fiber facilities.”). 31 Verizon Proprietary Document FiOS Voice and Data Installation Process for I&M Technicians, Doc. No. 2006-00844-MDP, Issue E, Issue Date 10/19/07 (reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-8). 23 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 services on copper, but instead would subject the customer to a problem- 2 resolution process with copper provisioning as a last resort: 3 On the rare occasion where a FiOS subscriber requests to have voice 4 service provisioned over copper, Verizon reminds the customer that 5 fiber transport is a transformational technology providing next 6 generation speed and services and makes every attempt to identify and 7 understand the nature of the customer's request. If the customer's issue 8 cannot be resolved, Verizon will provision the voice service over 9 copper.32 10 11 Verizon has provided more details concerning its procedures in a closely-similar 12 situation, namely when a customer who has been migrated to FTTP requests to 13 have their voice services returned to copper facilities. The M&P document 14 Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper sets forth < 15 the procedures that Verizon technician must follow in that case. Rather than 16 yielding to the customer’s request, the technician is directed to “make every 17 attempt to work with the Customer to understand the issue and work with them to 18 try and find a resolution,” short of returning the customer to copper – and “if the 19 problem cannot promptly be resolved-the technician must escalate the issue to the 20 appropriate resource to get help with a possible resolution.”33 The customer’s 21 request can be escalated to Verizon’s Encore Support organization (for a non- 22 technical “business” issue) or through the FSC and Tier 2 Customer Response 23 Team organizations if the request is considered to relate to a technical issue. 34 32 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-1 (reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-13). 33 Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper, Document No. 2006-00804-MDP, Issue D, Issue Date 5/15/06, Revised Date 10/11/2007 (Bates Nos. 000001-000004) (reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-4), at page 2 (Bates No. 000002). 34 Id., at page 3 (Bates No. 000003). 24 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 While Verizon characterizes that escalation process as a problem-resolution 2 strategy, from the consumer’s point of view it could well be experienced as 3 obstructionism. Strikingly, the document states that “The technician should 4 NEVER indicate that by going back to the copper network the Customer’s 5 problem would be solved.” (Emphasis in original) END PROPRIETARY>35 I 6 find this highly troubling, given that the document expressly < 7 PROPRIETARY identifies one of the reasons a customer might wish to return to 8 copper is that “the Customer simply wants to revert to DSL”36 – which is only 9 possible to do if the copper facility is restored! END PROPRIETARY>> 10 Clearly, Verizon is willing to go to great lengths to keep its customers on the 11 FTTP network once it has installed the fiber drop and associated customer 12 premises equipment (i.e., ONT and BBU). This may help to explain why only -- 13 < 14 January 2008 END PROPRIETARY>> have requested that Verizon return their 15 voice services to copper.37 16 17 Q. Has Verizon offered to have customers in Maryland try its FiOS Internet/TV 18 services on a “money-back guarantee” basis? 19 A. Yes. In 2007, Verizon offered a “30-day money-back guarantee” to customers 20 ordering FiOS Internet service, as shown in a “FAQs” (i.e., “frequently-asked 35 Id., at page 3 (Bates No. 000003). 36 Id., at page 2 (Bates No. 000002). 37 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 3-1. This proprietary response is reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-14. 25 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 questions”) webpage supplied in Verizon’s August 31, 2007 Response to OPC. 2 That webpage stated the following: 3 2. Is there a money-back guarantee with Verizon FiOS Internet Service? 4 Yes. Our 30-day money-back guarantee provides that if, for any reason, 5 you are not completely satisfied with Verizon FiOS Internet Service, you 6 may cancel your FiOS Internet Service within 30 days of your 7 installation date and receive a refund for any charges you have paid to 8 Verizon Online. We only ask that you return the router and any other 9 equipment that we have given you within 30 days of cancellation to 10 avoid being charged an equipment fee or to ensure accurate credit for 11 equipment you have already purchased. Please note: Current Verizon 12 Online High Speed Internet Service customers who move to FiOS 13 Internet service will have their Verizon Online High Speed Internet 14 permanently disabled after their FiOS conversion.38 15 16 In response to OPC discovery asking whether the 30-day money-back guarantee 17 was still in effect for FiOS Internet and/or TV services, Verizon entered an 18 objection, but also stated that “the 30-day money-back guarantee for FiOS 19 Internet ended in September 2007.”39 In a supplemental response, Verizon stated 20 that “the 30-day money-back guarantee for FiOS TV is believed to have ended in 21 mid/late 2007.”40 Nevertheless, in Section 8 of Verizon’s current Terms of 22 Service agreement for Internet Access Services (which encompasses both FiOS 23 Internet Service and Verizon’s DSL-based “High Speed Internet Service”), there 24 is a Money Back Guarantee clause setting forth terms that apply “If we provide a 38 Verizon webpage “Verizon FiOS Internet FAQs” (URL: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/faqs/faqs.htm, as of 8/14/07), provided as Exhibit C to Verizon’s Response to OPC. 39 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 4-1. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-15. 40 Verizon’s March 7, 2008 Supplemental Response to OPC Data Request No. 4-1. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-16. 26 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 money back guarantee ("MBG") for your Service” – suggesting that Verizon may 2 continue to offer a money-back guarantee for FiOS Internet Service at least from 3 time to time.41 4 5 Q. Does the presence of a “money-back guarantee” imply to customers that 6 their voice service will be restored to its prior condition if they discontinue 7 the FiOS service within the specified time limit of the guarantee? 8 A. Yes. The impression created by a “money-back guarantee” is that the customer 9 can try out the FiOS service at no risk, financial or otherwise, and that if they 10 elect to cancel the service within the allotted timeframe, then there will be no 11 consequences to them on a going-forward basis. This impression is reinforced by 12 the particular language used in the “FAQs” version of the money-back guarantee I 13 quoted earlier, namely that “We only ask that you return the router and any other 14 equipment that we have given you within 30 days of cancellation…” Surely a 15 reasonable customer could infer that, if Verizon seeks return of its equipment, 16 then all would be restored to its condition before the FiOS service was tried. 17 18 This however, is not what happens: instead, once the customer has Verizon’s 19 FiOS service installed, even on what appears to be a no-risk, trial basis, the 20 customer’s voice services will become permanently42 migrated to Verizon’s 41 See Verizon Online Terms of Service, version 8.1, effective March 4, 2008, at Section 8.3 Money Back Guarantee. This agreement was downloaded from http://www.verizon.net on May 30, 2008, and is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-17. 42 Verizon’s Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-5 took issue with a characterization that telephone service is “permanently altered” in this instance. I believe it certainly is a “permanent” 27 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 FTTP network, their copper drop remains disconnected, and they will be unable to 2 obtain copper-based voice telephone service and DSL Internet access services 3 from a Verizon competitor unless and until a Verizon technician reconnects the 4 copper drop. While presumably Verizon would prefer to have the customer 5 continue to subscribe to the FiOS Internet or TV service it has installed, in the 6 absence of adequate disclosure and customer consent (as I discuss separately later 7 in my testimony), a FiOS money-back guarantee can have the effect that the 8 customers orders an unregulated FiOS service, cancels it within the “money-back 9 guarantee” time limit, and ends up with a permanent change to their regulated 10 telephone service that they did not intend to get. 11 12 Q. In addition to the voice migration that occurs in conjunction with FiOS 13 service installations, has Verizon migrated other residential telephone 14 customers in Maryland to the FTTP network? 15 A. Yes. In Verizon’s August 2007 Response to OPC’s Petition,43 Verizon identified 16 an on-going program to migrate certain voice telephone subscribers to the FTTP 17 network. In response to OPC discovery (and OPC’s March 21, 2008 Motion to 18 Compel),44 Verizon has provided further details of this “targeted migration” 19 program. Under this program, which Verizon says is frequently referred to alteration, in the sense of an alteration that will continue forward indefinitely unless/until the customer affirmatively takes action to reverse it. I have reproduced Verizon’s data response in my Exhibit SCL-18. 43 See Verizon’s Response to OPC’s Petition, at para. 14. 44 Motion of the Office of People’s Counsel to Compel Discovery Responses from Verizon Maryland Inc., filed March 21, 2008 (“OPC Motion to Compel”). 28 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 internally as the “Network Migration to Fiber process, Verizon has established 2 certain criteria to identify voice telephone customers who may be eligible for 3 migration from the copper network to the FTTP network. These criteria are as 4 follows:45, 46 < 5 (1) A residential (“consumer”) customer; 6 7 (2) A subscriber to Verizon’s retail telephone service (“non-wholesale,” 8 meaning that they must not be subscribing to a CLEC’s voice service via a 9 Verizon line supplied on a wholesale basis); 10 11 (3) “Fiber-eligible,” meaning that the FTTP network has already been built 12 out to pass the customer’s premises; and 13 14 (4) Have experienced three (3) or more outside plant (“OSP”)-related troubles 15 within the past 12 months, and/or two (2) or more OSP-related troubles 16 within the past three (3) months. 17 18 Verizon has stated that at one point it had targeted for migration the residential 19 customers served by one particular central office (Lanham), “because that central 20 office had the highest volume of trouble tickets. However, Verizon is now able to 21 target customers individually, and does not target by central office or area.” END 22 PROPRIETARY>>47 The target migration program < 23 PROPRIETARY has two components – customers who call into Verizon to 24 report service troubles who meet the criteria and those customers that Verizon 45 See Verizon’s May 14, 2008 Supplemental and Compelled Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-9(c). I have reproduced the entirety of Verizon’s textual response to OPC Data Request No. 2- 9, including its compelled response to part 9(c), in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-19. 46 The criteria are also stated at pages 1-2 (Bates Nos. 000664-000665) of Verizon’s proprietary document “Network Migration to Fiber – DRC” Document No. 2007-00084-MDP, Issue F, Issue Date 2/19/07, Revised Date 11/27/07 (Bates Nos. 000664-000682), hereafter referred to as the Network Migration to Fiber M&P. Verizon originally provided this document as an attachment to Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-9. I have reproduced it in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-20. 47 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 9 (reproduced in Proprietary Exhibit SCL-19). 29 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 proactively contacts to advise of the migration to fiber as a resolution because 2 Verizon’s records indicate these customers meet the targeted migration 3 guidelines. END PROPRIETARY>> Verizon’s governing internal M&P 4 document < 5 “vital” to the END PROPRIETARY>>targeted migration plan.48 6 7 OPC attempted to determine which other exchanges have been impacted by the 8 program, as well as the total number of residential customer migrated to fiber 9 under the program. However, neither information is available, because Verizon’s 10 compelled response to OPC Data Request No. 9(g) is still outstanding, despite 11 being ordered by the Hearings Examiner to provide it; and OPC’s request to 12 compel Verizon to respond to OPC Data Request No. 9(h) was denied by the 13 Hearings Examiner.49 The absence of this information limits OPC’s ability to 14 evaluate the overall impact of this program on Maryland’s residential telephone 15 subscribers. However, given that the program < 16 presently targets customers at the individual level and is driven by clearly-defined 17 trouble reports criteria, rather than targeting particular areas or customer groups 18 by applying socio-demographic or financial criteria, END PROPRIETARY>> 19 my preliminary conclusion is that the program is likely not creating any improper 20 discrimination in the availability of FTTP-based voice telephone service.50 48 Network Migration to Fiber M&P, at page 14 (Bates No. 000677). 49 Hearing Examiner's Ruling on Open Discovery Motions, April 29, 2008, at page 2. 50 OPC raised this issue for investigation in this case at page 7 of its September 14, 2007 Response to Verizon. 30 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 2 One aspect of the program does remain troubling, which is the degree to which 3 Verizon explains to candidate customers the consequences of FTTP migration and 4 thus whether it obtains sufficiently informed consent. Verizon has claimed that 5 “Customers targeted for migration ultimately are migrated to the FTTP network 6 only after electing to take advantage of the migration and are not migrated to the 7 FTTP network without their consent” (emphasis in original).51 However, this 8 characterization seems at odds with the instructions Verizon has supplied to the 9 personnel who make the initial contact with a customer targeted for the migration 10 program. 11 12 < 13 that governs the implementation of the program contains “suggested verbiage” 14 that the Verizon customer contact person52 should use during the initial call with a 15 subscriber who calls Verizon to report a line problem, and qualifies for FTTP 16 migration under the program. It reads as follows: 17 Mr. or Mrs. ______, our records show that you have had 18 multiple trouble reports over the past year. To improve the quality of 19 your service, we will upgrade your network to our new state of the art 20 fiber network. All of your services will remain the same and there will 21 be no charge for this upgrade. Our records show that you do not 22 currently have DSL provided by Verizon or another provider. Is that 23 correct? In order to install the fiber, I need to transfer you to a business 24 office representative who will explain important details about this 51 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-10. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-21. 52 The Verizon unit handling < 31 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 network upgrade, and set up an appointment for a technician to come out 2 and install the fiber connection on the side of your house.53 3 4 There is certainly no suggestion in this script that the subscriber is being given a 5 choice whether to stay with their existing service arrangement or to take the 6 service “upgrade.” Instead, Verizon presents it as a fait accompli, “we will 7 upgrade your network to our new state of the art fiber network.” Moreover, the 8 wording that “[a]ll of your services will remain the same” appears to assure the 9 subscriber that they will experience no changes in their service (other than 10 improved reliability), when in fact the subscriber will confront the specific 11 changes I have described earlier in my testimony. END PROPRIETARY>> It is 12 possible that some additional information is provided concerning those changes 13 when the subscriber is< 14 representative in the Verizon business office (the Customer Sales and Solutions 15 Center, “CSSC”) to schedule the technician premises visit END 16 PROPRIETARY>> to effect the FTTP migration. However, based on the 17 minimal information provided in conjunction with Verizon’s FiOS service 18 installations (which I discuss in detail below), it does not appear that customers 19 targeted under this program will be provided sufficient information to make an 20 informed decision whether to accept an FTTP migration, if it was presented as a 21 choice for them to make. 22 53 See Network Migration to Fiber M&P Document (reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL- 20), at page 5 (Bates No. 000668). 32 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 VI. VERIZON’S CUSTOMER NOTICE AND CONSENT PROCEDURES FOR 2 VOICE MIGRATION TO FIBER 3 4 Verizon has applied inadequate procedures for customer notice and consent in 5 connection with its policy of routinely migrating the existing voice telephone services 6 of Maryland consumers to the FTTP network when those customers place an order 7 for unregulated FiOS Internet and/or TV services. 8 9 Q. Has Verizon claimed that it provides sufficient notification to customers who 10 may order FiOS Internet and/or TV services that their existing voice services 11 will be migrated to the FTTP network? 12 A. Yes. Verizon has addressed the adequacy of its customer notice and consent 13 procedures relative to voice migration in both its Response to OPC (at para. 11) 14 and its Reply Memorandum (pages 7-10). In the latter filing, Verizon states that: 15 FiOS customers receive abundant notification of voice migration to fiber 16 and consent to the voice migration when they subscribe to FiOS 17 services.54 18 19 Q. What standards should the Commission apply when evaluating the adequacy 20 of Verizon’s notice relative to voice migration? 21 A. In its initial Petition and its Response to Verizon, OPC has cited Sections 8-404 22 through 8-406 of Maryland’s public utility statutes, which prohibit an 23 unauthorized change in a customer’s telecommunications service options and 24 require conspicuous notice of service changes to customers.55 I am not an 25 attorney and therefore will not offer a legal opinion on the applicability of those 26 statutes to this case. However, it is clear to me that the consumer protection 54 Reply Memorandum, at page 7. 55 MD ANN. CODE Public Utilities Companies Article, §§ 8-404(3), 8-405(3), 8-406(b) and 8- 406(d) (1999). 33 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 concerns that motivated adoption of those statutes do arise in this instance, 2 because Verizon’s voice migration policy has a significant impact on customers’ 3 regulated telephone services. 4 5 Another source of guidance in this area is the Federal Trade Commission 6 (“FTC”), which regulates (among other things) certain aspects of commercial 7 sales and advertising. The FTC has published a “Policy Statement on Deception” 8 which sets forth the principles it applies to enforcement actions against potentially 9 deceptive acts or practices in the commercial arena. 56 When construed in an 10 affirmative manner (i.e., what a firm can do to avoid engaging in a potentially 11 deceptive act or practice), these principles can be summarized as: avoid making 12 any material representations, omissions or practices that are likely to mislead a 13 consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment.57 14 The FTC also has incorporated those principles in another document, “Dot-Com 15 Disclosures,” that is intended to provide guidance to businesses who engage in 16 on-line advertising.58 Therein, after stating that “same consumer protection laws 17 that apply to commercial activities in other media apply online,” the FTC 18 summarizes its disclosure requirements as follows: 19 Disclosures that are required to prevent an ad from being misleading, to 20 ensure that consumers receive material information about the terms of a 56 FTC Policy Statement on Deception, August 14, 1983, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad- decept.htm (accessed 5/21/2008). This document is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-22. 57 Id., at page 6. 58 FTC, “Dot-Com Disclosures: Information on On-Line Advertising,” http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.shtml (accessed 5/21/2008). This document is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-23. 34 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 transaction or to further public policy goals, must be clear and 2 conspicuous. In evaluating whether disclosures are likely to be clear and 3 conspicuous in online ads, advertisers should consider the placement of 4 the disclosure in an ad and its proximity to the relevant claim. 5 Additional considerations include: the prominence of the disclosure; 6 whether items in other parts of the ad distract attention from the 7 disclosure; whether the ad is so lengthy that the disclosure needs to be 8 repeated; whether disclosures in audio messages are presented in an 9 adequate volume and cadence and visual disclosures appear for a 10 sufficient duration; and, whether the language of the disclosure is 11 understandable to the intended audience.59 12 13 In order for Maryland consumers to make informed choices concerning the 14 regulated telephone services they are purchasing from Verizon, Verizon has a 15 responsibility to fully disclose its voice migration policy and its service impacts to 16 prospective buyers of FiOS services, in line with these general principles. 17 Specifically, Verizon should include a clear, and conspicuous customer notice 18 addressing the change of their voice telephone service in (1) the advertising and 19 promotional materials directed to prospective FiOS service customers, (2) within 20 the ordering process for FiOS services, (3) in the “Welcome Kit” received after 21 installation is completed and (4) on or with (via a bill insert) the customer’s first 22 telephone services bill after the service migration, that explicitly informs 23 customers of the change in an understandable manner and completely explains the 24 consequences of voice migration to the customer. The notice should be formatted 25 and positioned sufficiently prominently so that consumers can be reasonably 26 expected to see and review it in the course of their interactions with Verizon. 27 59 Id., at page 1. 35 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Q. Can you provide a specific example of a customer notice that would meet 2 your recommendations? 3 A. Yes. The following is a model disclosure statement that would provide adequate 4 customer notice of Verizon’s voice migration policy, provided that the notice was 5 displayed prominently within Verizon’s FiOS advertising and ordering documents 6 and webpages: 7 Migration of Your Existing Verizon Voice Telephone 8 Service 9 10 During the installation of your FiOS Internet or FIOS TV service, 11 Verizon will also upgrade your existing Verizon voice telephone 12 service,60 by moving the service from traditional copper facilities 13 onto the FiOS fiber optic network. No charges will apply for this 14 upgrade. However, it will impact your voice telephone service in 15 three ways: 16 17 (1) In contrast to a traditional corded telephone, the electrical 18 power for all services provided on the Verizon FiOS network, 19 including your upgraded voice telephone service, must be 20 supplied by you, the customer. To provide the power to 21 operate your voice telephone service, the Verizon technician 22 will plug the FiOS unit installed at your home (the “Optical 23 Network Unit” or “ONT”) into a nearby standard electrical 24 outlet. 25 26 (2) In the event that your house looses electrical power, a battery 27 unit in the ONT will supply back-up power for standard voice 28 telephone service (but not Voice Over IP services), including 29 E-911 emergency calls, for up to eight (8) hours total time, 30 whether or not you are placing or receiving calls. You will be 31 responsible for monitoring the status of the backup battery and 32 periodically replacing it when necessary. 33 60 If you have more than one Verizon voice telephone line billed to your account, each line will be upgraded to fiber as described. 36 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 (3) Certain telephones, answering machines and other telephone 2 equipment not meeting industry standards may not work with 3 your voice telephone service provided on the Verizon FiOS 4 network. 5 6 (4) The copper telephone line running into your home will be 7 disconnected as part of the FiOS installation process, and will impact 8 your ability utilize services that require a copper telephone line to 9 operate such as telephone services from other providers and Digital 10 Subscriber Line (“DSL”) services used for home computer 11 broadband access to the Internet. 12 13 (4) If you previously subscribed to Verizon’s DSL service, your 14 DSL line will be permanently disconnected after the FiOS 15 upgrade. 16 17 18 I recommend that the Commission require Verizon to supply this form of 19 customer notice as an integral part of each of Verizon’s FiOS ordering 20 procedures, as well as including it in the advertising and promotional materials for 21 its FiOS services. 22 23 Q. How does Verizon’s actual customer notice addressing fiber voice migration 24 compare to your recommended notice? 25 A. As I shall demonstrate in this section of my testimony, Verizon’s actual notice to 26 customers concerning voice migration to its FTTP network falls far short of these 27 standards. Because Verizon utilizes multiple sales channels to sell FiOS and 28 continually issues a variety of FiOS advertising and promotional materials, 29 Verizon can (and does) point to numerous documents and webpages as 30 “notifying” customers about voice migration. However, I have found these 37 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 materials to be inadequate for notification purposes because their discussions of 2 voice migration (where they occur at all) are cursory, incomplete, ambiguous, 3 and/or insufficiently prominent. I will now turn to reviewing these deficiencies in 4 detail. 5 6 Q. What are the specific forms of notification that Verizon contends that it uses 7 to inform customers that their voice telephone service will be migrated to the 8 FTTP network when they order FiOS Internet and/or TV service? 9 A. Verizon has addressed this issue in its August 31, 2007 Response to the OPC 10 Petition,61 its November 16, 2007 Reply Memorandum,62 and in responses to 11 OPC and Staff discovery on this matter.63 Verizon summarized its voice 12 migration notification measures in Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2- 13 2, stating (in relevant part):64 14 As explained in detail in Verizon's responsive pleadings filed on August 15 31, 2007 and November 16, 2007, Maryland consumers receive multiple 16 forms of written and verbal notification that FiOS customers will receive 17 voice services over fiber. The "Packages and Prices" web page advises 18 FiOS Internet customers purchasing voice service that both the Internet 19 and voice services will be provided over fiber. The "About Installation" 20 web page advises that installation will include the migration of "any 21 voice services on the current billing account to the Verizon FiOS 22 network," thus resolving any doubt as to the medium over which voice 23 service will be provided. The same notification is provided again in 24 documents delivered to the customer's premises, and is provided 25 verbally at the time the customer places an order with Verizon's 61 See Response to the OPC Petition, at para. 11. 62 See Reply Memorandum, at pages 7-10. 63 See, e.g., Verizon Responses to Staff Data Request Nos. 1-16 through 1-21, which are reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-24; and Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-2, reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-25. 64 Verizon’s full data response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-25. 38 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 customer service representative and again upon installation at the 2 customer's premises. 3 4 Based on that data response, as well as the other Verizon filings and responses 5 that I have just noted, I have compiled the following listing of Verizon webpages, 6 written documents, and additional non-written measures that Verizon appears to 7 consider as constituting its notification to customers that their voice telephone 8 service will be migrated to the FTTP network when they order FiOS Internet 9 and/or TV service: 10 x Verizon FiOS “Packages and Prices” webpage;65 11 x Verizon FiOS “About Installation” webpage;66 12 x Verizon “FiOS Internet” webpage;67 13 x Verizon “FiOS Internet Service Guide;”68 14 x Verizon “FiOS Internet User Guide;”69 15 x Verizon “FiOS TV User Guide;”70 65 The URL for this webpage is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm (as of 5/28/08). This webpage is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-1. An earlier, different version of this webpage had been provided in Exhibit G to Verizon’s August 31, 2007 Response to OPC. 66 The URL for this webpage is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/about+installation/about+installation.htm (as of 5/28/08). This webpage is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-7. 67 The URL for this webpage is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/ConsumerFios/ (as of 5/28/08). This webpage, including the “Disclaimer” text revealed after clicking on a “View the Verizon FiOS Internet Disclaimer” button, is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-26. 68 This document was provided as an attachment to Verizon’s Response to Staff Data Request No. 1-21 (Bates Nos. 000017-000033). I have provided this document in my Exhibit SCL-5. 69 Verizon provided this document as an attachment to its Response to Staff Data Request No. 1- 21 (Bates Numbers 000034-000087). I have reproduced this document in Exhibit SCL-27. 70 Verizon provided this document as an attachment to its Response to Staff Data Request 1-21 (Bates Numbers 000088-000155). I have reproduced this document in Exhibit SCL-28. 39 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 x Sales forms used by sales agents for door-to-door sales and at Maryland 2 special events;71 3 x Computerized ordering systems used by sales agents at kiosks and “big 4 box” retailers where Verizon FiOS services are sold; 5 x Verbal notifications during telephone service orders and FiOS 6 installations; and 7 x “Notification” supplied within website video showing a FiOS installation. 8 9 My Exhibit includes copies of each of the documents and webpages I have just 10 listed. One caveat is that each of these items is subject to change, as Verizon 11 alters the format and/or substance of these documents and webpages.. In fact, one 12 webpage that Verizon specifically cited as providing “clear and conspicuous” 13 written notice in its Response to OPC,72 the “Verizon FiOS – Good News” 14 webpage,73 is no longer posted on Verizon’s website and apparently has been 15 superseded.74 While I have attempted to rely upon the most current version of 16 each document/webpage cited above as I prepared my prefiled testimony, I 71 Verizon’s Response to Staff Data Request No. 1-23, at Bates No. 000188-189, and 000190- 000191. These sales forms are reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-38. 72 See Verizon’s Response to OPC, at para. 11. 73 The URL for this page was: https://www22.verizon.com/FiOSForHome/Channels/FiOS/DoublePlay_Landing.aspx (as of 8/6/07). It was supplied in Exhibit A to OPC’s Petition. 74 Its successor appears to be the< 40 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 reserve the right to update my testimony at hearing to reflect any further changes 2 in them that may occur in the intervening months. 3 4 Q. Do any of the written forms of notification that Verizon contends that it uses 5 to inform customers that their voice telephone service will be migrated to the 6 FTTP network when they order FiOS Internet and/or TV service contain a 7 separate section explicitly highlighting and detailing the voice telephone 8 service migration? 9 A. No, they do not. As I shall describe in my testimony, the notices that are made 10 are generally placed in the “fine print” section of the document or webpage, 11 together with unrelated terms and conditions having to do with the particular 12 FiOS service being ordered. 13 14 Q. Do any of the written forms of notification that Verizon contends that it uses 15 to inform customers that their voice telephone service will be migrated to the 16 FTTP network when they order FiOS Internet and/or TV service contain 17 language or links such as “Important Information About Change To Your 18 Telephone Service” or “Information About Your Telephone Service”, 19 directing the customer to access such information? 20 A. No, I have not found any instance in which Verizon has segregated the 21 information addressing voice migration in that manner. 22 41 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Q. Please describe the notice supplied on the Verizon FiOS “Packages and 2 Prices” webpage. 3 A. The “Packages and Prices” webpage is a two-page summary of the pricing plans 4 and speeds available for Verizon’s FiOS Internet services.75 The webpage 5 contains three paragraphs of terms and conditions of service, the last of which 6 reads as follows: 7 Voice service for FiOS customers is provisioned over fiber. A battery 8 unit will supply back-up power for standard voice service (but not Voice 9 Over IP services), including E -911, for up to eight hours. Power for 10 services provided on the Verizon FiOS network must be supplied by 11 customer. Customer is responsible for backup battery replacement. 12 Backup battery does not supply power for Internet, VOIP, or video 13 services. In case of power failure, 911 service (except through VOIP) 14 will be available until backup battery expires. Certain telephones, 15 answering machines and other telephone equipment not meeting 16 industry standards may not work with service provided on the Verizon 17 FiOS network. ©2008 Verizon.76 18 19 Q. Did Verizon change the voice migration notice provided on this webpage 20 during the course of your investigation? 21 A. Yes. When I had accessed this webpage in March 2008 in the course of my 22 investigation, the version posted on Verizon’s website at that time had none of the 23 language that I just quoted.77 I have supplied a copy of that prior version in my 24 Exhibit SCL-33 Hopefully, this recent expansion in the notice supplied on that 75 See Exhibit SCL-1. 76 Id. 77 Verizon FiOS “Packages and Prices” webpage, http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm (accessed 3/21/08). I have reproduced this webpage in my Exhibit SCL-29. 42 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 particular webpage indicates that Verizon is willing to make efforts to improve its 2 disclosures to consumers concerning voice migrations to the FTTP network. 3 4 Q. Please describe the notice supplied on the Verizon FiOS “About Installation” 5 webpage. 6 A. The “About Installation” webpage is a one-page summary of what takes place 7 during an installation of FiOS service.78 Relative to voice migration, it states that 8 the Verizon installer will “Migrate any voice services on the current billing 9 account to the Verizon FiOS network. There is no additional cost for this, and it 10 will not affect your current monthly charges.” The page also contains a link to 11 two videos that demonstrate Verizon’s FiOS service installation procedures. 12 13 Q. In your opinion, do the statements that you just cited constitute “clear and 14 conspicuous” notice? 15 A. No, they fall short of providing “clear and conspicuous notice” because they do 16 not provide any explanation of what “migrate” means in this context, and the 17 consequences to consumers that arise from the migration – that is, it fails to state 18 that the customer will thereafter be responsible for the battery back-up power, that 19 they will no longer be able to obtain copper-based DSL services from either 20 Verizon or competitive DSL providers, and that certain customer premises 21 equipment may no longer work properly after the migration. 22 78 See Exhibit SCL-7. A previous version of this page (dated 8/14/2007) appears in Exhibit B to Verizon’s Response to OPC. 43 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Q. Do either of the video demonstrations of FiOS services installation provide 2 “clear and conspicuous” notice that voice services are migrated to fiber? 3 A. No, they do not. The two videos illustrate the installation procedures that occur 4 when a customer orders FiOS Internet alone,79 or in combination with FiOS TV 5 service.80 I have reviewed them both (as presented on June 19, 2008), and neither 6 video makes a direct statement to the effect that, in the process of installing the 7 customer’s FiOS service(s), their existing voice telephone line(s) will be migrated 8 to the fiber (FTTP) network. The closest statements in the videos have language 9 such as “The process of upgrading your home data and voice network takes 10 approximately four to six hours.”81 While this language alludes to some 11 unspecified change to the customer’s voice network, it does not directly state that 12 the customer’s voice telephone service is going to be migrated to fiber, and thus it 13 falls far short of providing “clear and conspicuous notice.” 14 15 Q. Please describe the notice supplied on the Verizon FiOS Internet 16 “Disclaimer” webpage. 79 The URL for the pop-up that runs this video is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/about+installation/flashcontent/flashcontent.ht m (accessed 6/19/08). 80 The URL for the pop-up that runs this video is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/about+installation/HomeInternetTV/HomeInter netTV.htm (accessed 619/08). 81 This version is in the FiOS Internet-only installation video; the video demonstrating installation of FiOS Internet and TV service is similar, stating “The process of upgrading your home phone, Internet, and TV service takes approximately four to six hours.” 44 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 A. The “FiOS Internet Disclaimer” webpage82 contains nine lines of text that provide 2 additional details of the terms and conditions for Verizon FiOS Internet service. 3 To view this material from the “FiOS Internet” home page, a consumer must 4 choose a link labeled “View the FiOS Internet disclaimer.” The last lines of the 5 Disclaimer text looks like this: 6 Voice service for FiOS customers is provisioned over fiber. A battery unit will supply back -up power f or standard 7 voice service (but not voice over Ip services), including E -911 for up to eight hours. ©2008 Verizon. 8 9 Q. In your opinion, does that statement constitute “clear and conspicuous 10 notice? 11 A. No. In the first place, the bare statement that “Voice service for FiOS customers 12 is provisioned over fiber” is far too cursory to convey the essential information 13 required to adequately inform customers about a change of their voice telephone 14 service from copper to fiber facilities and its consequences to them. Second, the 15 “Disclaimer” text is supplied in a small font size, approximately 8-point, which 16 diminishes its visibility and conspicuousness. And third, the fact that this notice 17 can be accessed only when the person viewing the website affirmatively chooses 18 to “View the FiOS Internet disclaimer” makes it decidedly inconspicuous, 19 because (1) that link label gives no indication that the linked page will be 20 providing any information relevant to the customer’s voice telephone service, and 21 (2) as a matter of definition, a “disclaimer” is a “denial or disavowal of legal 82 The URL for this webpage is: http://www22.verizon.com/content/ConsumerFios/ (as of 5/28/08). This webpage, including the “Disclaimer” text revealed after clicking on a “View the Verizon FiOS Internet Disclaimer” button, is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-26. 45 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 claim,”83 not an explanation of terms and conditions of service (as the 2 “disclaimer” webpage actually provides), so that the link label is a misnomer, and 3 does not suggest that any terms and conditions of FiOS Internet service (let alone 4 voice telephone service) will appear within the linked text. 5 6 Q. The next item on your list is the Verizon “FiOS Internet Service Guide.” 7 Please describe what Verizon’s Response to OPC’s Petition stated concerning 8 the voice migration to fiber notice supplied by that document. 9 A. Paragraph 11 of the Verizon Response to OPC’s Petition addresses the notice that 10 Verizon provides to FiOS customers about voice telephone service migration to 11 fiber. In that paragraph, Verizon states that: “Written notification is given again 12 in documents delivered to the customer. See Customer Notification Documents, 13 attached as Exhibit E.” Verizon’s Exhibit E contained a reproduction (in two- 14 page per sheet format) of the front and back covers of the Verizon “FiOS Internet 15 Service Guide,” plus pages 4 and 5 of that Service Guide. 16 17 Q. Is there any discussion about voice telephone service migration to fiber 18 within Exhibit E of the Verizon Response? 19 A. No. None of the Service Guide pages supplied in Exhibit E make any reference 20 whatsoever to the fact that Verizon’s practice is to migrate a customer’s voice 21 telephone service to the fiber (FTTP) network when the customer orders FiOS 22 Internet Service. 83 See the definition of “disclaimer” supplied by the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclaimer (accessed 3/21/08). 46 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 2 Q. Is there any discussion of voice telephone service migration to fiber anywhere 3 else in the “FiOS Internet Service Guide,” so that it could be said to provide 4 notice of that migration? 5 A. No, there is not. Verizon has provided a copy of the entire “FiOS Internet Service 6 Guide” in the document with Bates Numbers 000017-000033, supplied as an 7 attachment to its response to Staff Data Request No. 1-21.84 I have reviewed this 8 document, and found that it contains no statement explaining that a FiOS Internet 9 customer’s voice telephone service will be migrated to the fiber (FTTP) network; 10 indeed, the words “migrate,” “migration,” “change” or “changed” do not appear 11 anywhere within the Service Guide. Instead, the Service Guide provides 12 information intended to “explain the equipment installed with your Verizon FiOS 13 Internet,” as its first page (Bates No. 000019) states. Accordingly, the Service 14 Guide’s pages are entitled: a “Welcome to Verizon FiOS Internet” (Bates No. 15 000019), “FiOS Internet Service Installation Diagrams” (Bates Nos. 000020 and 16 000021), descriptions of “FiOS Equipment: The Optical Network Terminal 17 (ONT): Your light source” (Bates No. 000022) and “ONT Power Supply Unit 18 (OPSU): Your electricity source (Bates No. 000023), descriptions of the “Battery 19 Backup Unit (BBU)” (Bates Nos. 000024-000027) and the “Verizon FIOS 20 Internet Router” (Bates No. 000029), plus “Troubleshooting Tips” (Bates Nos. 21 000030-000031). The second “Troubleshooting Tips” page (Bates No. 000031) 22 does refer to voice service – it begins “Voice Service Test: If you’re having 84 I have reproduced this document in my Exhibit SCL-5. 47 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 problems with your voice service, it could be your inside wiring. To find out…” 2 -- and it continues on with instructions on how to test for dial tone and how to 3 contact Verizon for further assistance. However, this reference to voice service 4 does not by any means constitute a notice of voice telephony migration to fiber. 5 6 Q. Is there any notice of voice telephone service migration to fiber within 7 Verizon’s “FiOS Internet User Guide”? 8 A. No, there is not. Verizon supplied this document an attachment to its response to 9 Staff Data Request 1-21, in Bates Numbers 000034-000087.85 I have reviewed 10 this document, and found that, like the Verizon “FiOS Internet Service Guide,” it 11 contains no statement explaining that a FiOS Internet customer’s voice telephone 12 service will be migrated to the fiber (FTTP) network, nor the words “migrate,” 13 “migration,” “change” or “changed” in relation to voice telephone service. 14 15 Q. What about the similar documentation for Verizon’s TV service, the “FiOS 16 TV User Guide”? 17 A. Verizon supplied its “Verizon FiOS TV User Guide” as an attachment to the 18 response to Staff Data Request 1-21, in Bates Numbers 000088-000155.86 I have 19 reviewed this document as well, and found that it also contains no statement 20 explaining that a FiOS Internet customer’s voice service will be migrated to the 85 I have reproduced this document in my Exhibit SCL-27. 86 I have reproduced this document in my Exhibit SCL-28. 48 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 fiber (FTTP) network, nor the words “migrate,” “migration,” “change” or 2 “changed” in relation to voice telephone service. 3 4 Q. Have you been able to assess the verbal notifications concerning voice 5 migration that Verizon claims to provide to customers who telephone the 6 Verizon business office to order FiOS Internet and/or FiOS TV service? 7 A. Yes, to the extent that the written talking points or “scripts” that Verizon provides 8 to its customer service representatives accurately reflect the information actually 9 conveyed to Maryland customers. I have reviewed the telephone scripts that 10 Verizon provided as proprietary attachments to its responses to Staff Data 11 Requests No. 2-5 and 2-9, and OPC Data Requests No. 6-4 and 6-5. 12 13 The first proprietary telephone script is entitled “Cofee Consumer BBU Scripting 14 – FiOS Internet – February 27, 2008.”87 This script is used by Verizon Maryland 15 customer service representatives when interacting with a Maryland consumer who 16 is ordering FiOS Internet service via a telephone call to a Verizon business 17 office.88 The written script is < 18 topic areas and formatted into two columns to differentiate “Key Points” from the 87 See Verizon Response to Staff Data Request No. 2-5. I have reproduced this document in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-30. In the same data response, Verizon also supplied< 49 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 full text “Scripting.”89 In the next-to-last topic area, “Access/Installation 2 Timeframe,” the full script indicates that “[t]he entire [installation] process could 3 take approximately 4-6 hours” and continues: 4 During this time your voice services will also be moved from the 5 traditional copper facilities. Your existing Verizon services should only 6 be inaccessible for part of that time. 7 8 It is striking that Verizon apparently does not consider voice migration a “Key 9 Point” to communicate, as no mention of it appears in the “Key Points” box for 10 the Access/Installation Timeframe topic. END PROPRIETARY>> 11 12 Verizon also contends that its customer service representatives routinely follow a 13 < 14 FiOS Internet orders by telephone.90 While this checklist contains twelve fairly- 15 detailed discussion items, it makes no mention of voice migration whatsoever. 16 END PROPRIETARY>> This glaring omission confirms that Verizon 17 downplays to its customer service representatives the importance of providing 18 notice and explanation of voice telephone service migration, and implies that 19 those customer service representatives will in turn fail to adequately communicate 20 the consequences of voice telephone service migration to Verizon’s customers. 21 89 “Cofee Consumer BBU Scripting – FiOS Internet – February 27, 2008” (reproduced in Proprietary Exhibit SCL-30), at pages 5-6. 90 See Verizon Response to Staff Data Request No. 2-9. The “FiOS Disclaimer Checklist” provided as an attachment thereto is also reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-33. 50 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Finally, Verizon has supplied a proprietary document titled “FiOS TV 2 Scripting,”91 which sets forth the script followed by Verizon Maryland customer 3 service representatives when interacting with a Maryland consumer who is 4 ordering FiOS TV service via a telephone call to a Verizon business office. 5 While < 6 used in the FiOS Internet script I discussed earlier, it contains exactly the same 7 two sentences concerning “voice services…moved” that I quoted in that instance 8 END PROPRIETARY>>.92 9 10 Q. What notice does Verizon provide concerning voice migration when a 11 customer places an on-line order for FiOS Internet and/or TV service via the 12 Verizon website? 13 A. In its response to Staff Data Request No. 2-5, Verizon supplied a < 14 PROPRIETARY 24-page proprietary document (with Bates numbers) titled 15 “FiOS Triple Play -- .net Standalone Site,” that provides a sequence of computer 16 screen shots generated when a customer places an on-line order for FiOS service 17 via the Verizon website.93 While the particular screen shots apparently reflect an 18 order of “Fast” FiOS Internet (Up to 5 Mbps/2Mpbs and FiOS TV Premier 91 See Verizon Response to Staff Data Request No. 2-9. The “FiOS TV Scripting” document provided as an attachment thereto is also reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-34. See also Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 6-5 (my Exhibit SCL-33), which explains the application of the scripts. 92 See “FiOS TV Scripting” document (my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-34), at pages 2-3. Those sentences are repeated in an order “recap” section at the end of the< 51 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 service, my understanding is that the customer notice concerning voice telephone 2 service migration would be closely-similar under any of the ordering options 3 available via this sales channel. The specific language in these screen shots that 4 addresses voice migration includes the following: 5 x “DoublePlay_Landing” webpage (pages 5 through 7 of 24). In the first 6 full paragraph of the fine-print section: “FiOS Internet and FiOS TV 7 customers purchasing Verizon voice service receive all three services over 8 fiber. Includes up to 8 hours battery back up (for non-IP voice service 9 only).” (Page 5 of 24). In addition, page 6 of 24 discloses that the 10 customer’s ability to obtain Verizon DSL (branded as “Verizon High 11 Speed Internet” service) will become permanently disabled. 12 x “DoublePlay_Landing” webpage (pages 5 through 7 of 24). In the fourth 13 (final) full paragraph of the fine-print section, Verizon provides disclosure 14 of the power and back-up battery issues, and incompatibility of certain 15 CPE. (See page 7 of 24). However, these disclosures are not positioned 16 near the notice that voice telephone services will be provided over fiber, 17 so consumers may not realize that they are consequences of the migration 18 of their voice telephone service to the FiOS network. 19 “EquipmentOptions_east” webpage (pages 8 through 11 of 24). The same 20 four paragraphs of text are repeated here, including the disclosures I have 21 just described. 52 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 x “OrderFiOS/Custdetails” webpage (pages 16 through 18 of 24). Once 2 again, this webpage repeats the same four paragraphs, including the 3 particular disclosures I described earlier. 4 x “OrderFiOS/Confirmdetails” webpage (pages 19 through 24 of 24). 5 Within a box titled “Review and Accept Wiring Requirements,” Verizon 6 states that “On the day of your installation, the Verizon professional 7 technician will move your voice service over to the FiOS network. This 8 will not affect your monthly telephone charges and is provided at no 9 additional cost.” It also discloses that the customer’s ability to obtain DSL 10 (“High Speed Internet” service) will be disabled Verizon requires the 11 customer to check a box labeled “I understand and accept the above wiring 12 and installation requirements.” END PROPRIETARY >> 13 14 Q. Does the notice that you have just described for Verizon’s on-line ordering 15 channel constitute clear and conspicuous notice of the impacts of voice 16 telephone service migration to the fiber (FTTP) network? 17 A. No. While this notice is an improvement from that associated with Verizon’s 18 other ordering channels, both in terms of the content and its repetition, it 19 nevertheless falls short in several respects. One problem is that the < 20 PROPRIETARY statement “FiOS Internet and FiOS TV customers purchasing 21 Verizon voice service receive all three services over fiber” is decidedly 22 ambiguous, because it implies that the customer is ordering a new Verizon voice 23 telephone service at the same time as they order the FiOS service(s), rather than 53 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 that they are an existing voice telephone service customer. This implication is 2 created by the use of the present progressive verb tense (“customers purchasing”) 3 that applies to an activity in progress, and could be avoided by rephrasing it as 4 “FiOS Internet and FiOS TV customers who already subscribe to Verizon voice 5 telephone service, or plan to do so when ordering a FiOS service, will receive 6 their voice telephone services over fiber, as well as the FiOS services.” Second, 7 as I noted earlier, the disclosures addressing power, battery back-up, and CPE 8 incompatibility are not positioned near the notice that voice telephone services 9 will be provided over fiber, so consumers may not realize that those changes are 10 consequences of the migration of their voice telephone service to the FiOS 11 network. Similarly, the notice within the “Review and Accept Wiring 12 Requirements” box does not spell out those consequences of voice migration, and 13 thus does not afford sufficient notice. END PROPRIETARY>> All of these 14 deficiencies could be avoided if Verizon instead applied the complete disclosure 15 statement that I supplied earlier in my testimony. 16 17 Q. What notice concerning voice migration to FTTP is provided to Maryland 18 consumers who order FiOS services via a sales agent at a kiosk or a “big- 19 box” retailer? 20 A. When a Maryland consumer orders a FiOS service at a kiosk or a “big-box” 21 retailer such as Best-Buy, Wal-Mart, etc., their order is handled by a third-party 22 sales agent who uses a computerized ordering system supplied by Verizon, known 23 as the < 54 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 PROPRIETARY>>.94 In response to OPC discovery, Verizon has provided on a 2 proprietary basis a < 3 that contains computer screen shots illustrating certain portions of the ordering 4 process.95 It appears from this document that the voice migration disclosures 5 made to the consumer in this situation are limited to having the customer review 6 and accept a “FiOS Installation and Wiring Requirements” statement, similar to 7 the “Review and Accept Wiring Requirements” box appearing in the Verizon on- 8 line ordering process that I described earlier in my testimony. END 9 PROPRIETARY>> 96 Once again, this fails to provide an adequate degree of 10 notice to the consumer to allow them to make an informed decision on whether to 11 accept migration of their voice service to the FTTP network. 12 13 Q. Have you also reviewed Verizon’s FiOS promotional materials to see if they 14 provide clear and conspicuous notice of voice telephone service migration to 15 the fiber (FTTP) network? 16 A. Yes, I have. Verizon has provided certain printed promotional materials relating 17 to FiOS Internet, TV, and phone service packages, as attachments to its response 18 to Staff Data Request 1-25, in Bates Numbers 000179-00187.97 Each of the five 19 letters/flyers supplied therein contain a statement embedded within the “fine- 94 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 7-7. The text response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-58. 95 The proprietary document “SPOT Training Manual,” was provided as a proprietary attachment to Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 7-7. This document is reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-59. 96 See id., at page 25. 97 These five documents are reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-36. 55 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 print” section that says either “Verizon FiOS Internet customers purchasing 2 Verizon voice service receive both services over fiber,”98 or “Verizon FiOS TV 3 customers purchasing Verizon voice service receive both services over fiber.”99 4 However, none of these statements constitute clear and conspicuous notice that a 5 Verizon customer’s existing voice telephone service will be migrated to the fiber 6 (FTTP) network when they order FiOS Internet and/or TV service. 7 8 Q. Please explain. 9 A. An initial matter, the positioning and small font size applied to those statements 10 diminish the visibility and conspicuousness of the notice they provide. Moreover, 11 similar to the situation that I just described relative to Verizon’s on-line ordering 12 channel notice, the statements’ wording is also ambiguous rather than clear: the 13 phrase “FiOS Internet customers purchasing Verizon voice service” implies that 14 the customer is ordering a new Verizon voice telephone service at the same time 15 as they order FiOS Internet, rather than that they are an existing voice telephone 16 service customer. This implication is created by the use of the present progressive 17 verb tense (“customers purchasing”) that applies to an activity in progress, and 18 could be avoided by rephrasing it as “FiOS Internet customers who already 19 subscribe to Verizon voice telephone service, or plan to do so when ordering 20 FiOS Internet, will receive both services over fiber.” 21 98 Id., see Bates Nos. 000182, 000184, and 000186. 99 Id., see Bates Nos. 000180 and 000187 56 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 In fact, two of these promotional documents contain language that create the 2 impression that existing FiOS Internet customers do not have their telephone 3 services running over the fiber (FTTP) network, and thus, are not subject to 4 migration. 5 6 Q. Please explain how those two promotional documents create the impression 7 that FiOS Internet customers do not have their voice service migrated to 8 fiber. 9 A. There are two promotional letters, supplied in Bates Nos. 000183-000184 and 10 000185-000186, respectively, that have a header titled “Verizon FiOS,® Fiber- 11 optic TV, Internet and unlimited calling, all together for $99.99 a month.” I have 12 reproduced them in my Exhibit SCL-36. Each of the letters begins with the 13 following introduction: 14 “Dear 15 Want more from your Internet, TV and phone service? 16 You’re already enjoying state-of-the-art Internet service with Verizon FiOS. Why 17 not let your TV and phone in on the action, too? Find out how a 100% fiber-optic 18 connection straight to your home can do a lot more than just improve your 19 entertainment experience.” 20 21 The target audience for these letters clearly consists of Verizon customers who 22 already subscribe to FiOS Internet service. Yet by entreating them to “let your 23 TV and phone in on the action, too” (emphasis supplied), Verizon appears to be 24 urging those customers to migrate their TV and phone service over to that “100% 25 fiber-optic connection,” which thus implies that the customer’s phone service had 26 not been migrated to fiber previously. This unfortunate misrepresentation of 57 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Verizon’s actual voice telephone service migration practice seriously undercuts 2 any other “notice” that it may be providing to Maryland consumers. 3 4 Q. Mr. Lundquist, are you aware of any documents that are viewed by 5 Maryland consumers as they order Verizon FiOS Internet and/or TV service, 6 that could be easily modified to provide clear and conspicuous notice 7 concerning voice migration to fiber, but do not currently provide such 8 notice? 9 A. Yes, I am aware of two Verizon documents to which that circumstance applies. 10 They are sales order forms (two pages each) that were supplied as attachments to 11 Verizon’s Response to Staff Data Request No. 1-23, in Bates No. 000188-189, 12 and 000190-000191, respectively. Verizon has indicated that they are used 13 during door-to-door sales in Maryland, as well as at special events in 14 Maryland.100 The two forms both specifically reference Maryland and are 15 similarly organized, but differ in the precise service packages and offerings they 16 present. I have reproduced these forms in my Exhibit SCL-38. On the first page 17 of each form, there is a box with the title, “Customer Must Initial as the agent 18 covers each installation detail:” The “installation details” for which customer 19 initials are required include such items as: 20 x $29.99 Activation Fee applies to all new customers signing up for FiOS 21 Internet; 22 x Installation is expected to take a minimum of 4-6 hours; and 23 x Prior to installation a fiber line will be run to your home to allow your new 24 service to be installed. The line will be run the same as your current 100 See Verizon Response to Staff Data Request No. 2-6. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-37. 58 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 copper line: aerial or buried. Charges will apply if a request is made to 2 change from the existing cable placement. 3 4 In my view, it is a glaring omission that this box, which explicitly requires 5 customer consent on these types of installation details, has no statement about, nor 6 seeks consent for, the migration of the customer’s existing voice service(s) to the 7 fiber (FTTP) network. Adding the complete disclosure statement that I presented 8 earlier in my testimony, and permitting the customer to initial it, would be a 9 simple, cost-effective, and appropriate method to ensure that there has been clear 10 and conspicuous notice, as well as verifiable consent, for those customers who 11 obtain service via the sales agents using these forms. 12 13 Q. At any point in the FiOS service ordering and installation process, does 14 Verizon obtain written authorization from the customer to migrate his/her 15 telephone service from its existing configuration (i.e., with a copper drop) to 16 the FTTP network? 17 A. No. OPC has investigated this point in discovery, and confirmed that when 18 Verizon proceeds to fulfill a customer’s request for FiOS Internet and/or TV 19 service, the Company does not obtain a written authorization from that customer 20 acknowledging that they consent to have their voice telephone service migrated 21 from a copper drop to the FTTP network. 22 23 Specifically, in OPC Data Request 2-3 to Verizon, OPC requested that Verizon 24 “provide a copy of any standard consent forms used to document customers' 59 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 consent to migration of their voice services to the fiber facilities. If no such forms 2 exist, please explain how Verizon Maryland documents its customers' consent to 3 that migration.” In its response, Verizon stated that “There are no ‘standard 4 consent forms’ used to document customers' consent to voice migration to 5 fiber.”101 6 7 Q. Is it Verizon’s position that it does not need a written authorization from the 8 customer to migrate their voice telephone service(s) to the FTTP network? 9 A. Yes, that appears to be Verizon’s position. In its Response to OPC Data Request 10 No. 2-3, Verizon states further that “The fact that residential customers elect to 11 have FiOS Internet or TV service installed after receiving multiple forms of 12 written and verbal notification that their voice service will be migrated to fiber is 13 direct evidence of those customers' consent to the migration.” (Emphasis in 14 original.) 15 16 Q. In your view, should Verizon be required to obtain verifiable consent from 17 the customer before migrating their voice telephone service in the context of 18 installing a FiOS service? 19 20 A. Yes, I believe that obtaining verifiable consent from the customer before 21 migrating their voice telephone service to FTTP is extremely important in this 22 situation. As I have previously discussed in my testimony, Verizon performs the 101 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-3. This data response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-39. 60 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 migrations of customers’ regulated voice services in the context of installing one 2 or more unregulated FiOS services. Given the incidental nature of the voice 3 migration from the perspective of the customer, who is focused on obtaining their 4 ordered FiOS services, rather than thinking of potential changes to their voice 5 telephone service, I believe it is crucial that Verizon fully disclose to the customer 6 the voice telephone migration process and its consequences, and then obtain 7 verifiable consent from the customer to undertake the migration. The best way to 8 ensure that customer consent has occurred is to have Verizon present a full 9 disclosure statement, along the lines that I have already discussed, and have the 10 customer affix their initials (or full signature) next to a statement below that 11 disclosure stating that “I have read and understand the above disclosure 12 concerning migration of my voice telephone service to the FTTP network and 13 consent to that migration.”102 14 15 VII. VERIZON’S TREATMENT OF ITS COPPER DROP FACILITIES 16 DURING FIOS INSTALLATIONS, AND THEIR COMPETITIVE 17 IMPACTS 18 19 Verizon’s wholesale service ordering mechanisms do not adequately account for the 20 Company’s disconnection of copper drop facilities during a FiOS installation, which 21 creates adverse and anticompetitive impacts on CLECs attempting to order a 22 copper UNE loop for consumers that have been migrated to the FTTP network. 23 102 In the context of an on-line order made by the customer, it should be sufficient for the customer to check a box next to that statement rather than write their initials, as is routinely done for software agreements, for example. 61 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Q. What is Verizon’s practice concerning the treatment of the copper drop 2 facilities of consumers who elect to subscribe to FiOS Internet and/or TV 3 service? 4 A. In response to discovery, Verizon has described its current practice as follows: 5 The current practice when moving voice service to fiber is to disconnect 6 the copper drop wire from the NID but otherwise leave the wire in place. 7 This is true both for buried and aerial facilities.103 8 9 This practice, of disconnecting, but not physically removing copper drops, is also 10 set forth in Verizon’s current provisioning and maintenance instructions to the 11 field technicians who perform FiOS service installations. Verizon’s < 12 PROPRIETARY 2007 M&P document FiOS Voice and Data Installation 13 Process for I&M Technicians, prescribes on page 36 that, absent certain 14 conditions, the technician should disconnect Maryland consumer customers’ 15 aerial copper drops when installing FiOS, but leave the facility in place, cutting 16 and securing it in a prescribed fashion to reduce the risk from lightning strikes. 17 END PROPRIETARY>> 104 Similarly, page < 18 of that document prescribes that the technician should disconnect, but not 19 physically remove, the buried copper drop that had been serving a Maryland 20 consumer, when that customer is subject to a FiOS installation.105 These 21 practices apply to all states within Verizon’s defined “Tier 2 Lightning Zone,” 103 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 2-16 (reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-9). See also Verizon’s Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request 1-45, which contains essentially the same statements. The latter response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-40. 104 See FiOS Voice and Data Installation Process for I&M Technicians M&P (reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-8), at page 36 (Bates No. 000435). 105 Id., at page 39 (Bates No. 000438). 62 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 which includes Maryland, whereas states in the other Lightning Zones may be 2 subject to different practices. END PROPRIETARY>> 3 4 Q. Has Verizon’s practice in Maryland always been to leave the customer’s 5 copper drop physically in place during a FiOS installation? 6 A. No. Verizon has stated “the current practice was adopted on or about October 25, 7 2007.”106 That practice appears to have been established by < 8 PROPRIETARY the release of the “Issue B” revision to a provisioning methods 9 document titled “Copper Drop Removal on FiOS.” END PROPRIETARY>>107 10 Prior to that time, < 11 that document, Verizon technicians were instructed to remove aerial copper drops 12 during FiOS installations under most circumstances, whereas buried copper drops 13 were ordinarily left in place, but disconnected.108 END PROPRIETARY>> 14 According to Verizon, < 15 practice was driven in part by the results of its investigation of lightning damage 16 incidents in Texas and Florida, where it was determined that leaving copper drops 17 (both buried and aerial) disconnected, but in close proximity to an ONT or the 106 Verizon Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request No. 3-21. This data response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-41. 107 “Copper Drop Removal on FiOS,” Document No. 2005-00351-MDP, Issue B, Issue Date 9/29/05, Revised Date 9/05/07 (hereafter, Copper Drop Removal on FiOS, Issue B). Verizon provided this document as a proprietary attachment to Verizon Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request No. 3-10. This document is reproduced in my Propretary Exhibit SCL-42. 108 “Copper Drop Removal on FiOS,” Document No. 2005-00351-MDP, Issue A, Issue Date 9/29/05. Verizon provided this document as a proprietary attachment to Verizon Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request No. 3-10. This document is reproduced in my Proprietary Exhibit SCL-43. 63 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 customer’s inside wiring, could allow lightning to enter and damage the ONT.109 2 Consequently, Verizon established revised installation rules for three Lightning 3 Tiers (groups of states classified by lightning risk), including the rules currently 4 applicable in Maryland. These rules were incorporated into the FiOS Voice and 5 Data Installation M&P that prescribes FiOS installation procedures in the “Issue 6 E” release of that document.110 END PROPRIETARY>> 7 8 Q. Does Verizon perform any periodic maintenance or inspections of the 9 copper drops that it disconnects, to ensure that they will be usable at a later 10 point in time? 11 A. No, apparently not. In discovery, OPC asked Verizon how it ensures that disused 12 buried drops will remain in a reusable condition, in the event that residential 13 subscribers later desire to return their telephone service to the copper facilities. 14 Verizon’s response states the following: 15 The current practice when moving voice service to fiber is to disconnect 16 the copper drop wire from the NID but otherwise leave it in place. This 17 is true for both buried and aerial facilities. Because the copper remains 18 in place, if a Verizon customer requests that service be returned to 19 copper facilities, Verizon reconnects the copper drop. If Verizon 20 discovers that the facilities are unusable (facilities can degrade over time 21 due to a variety of factors, including weather, age, and structural 22 damage), then Verizon will replace the copper drop. If a customer 23 orders telephone service from a CLEC that uses Verizon copper loops to 24 provide service, Verizon reconnects the existing copper drop.111 25 109 Copper Drop Removal on FiOS, Issue B (reproduced in Proprietary Exhibit SCL-42). 110 FiOS Voice and Data Installation M&P, Issue E, Issue Date 10/19/07 (reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-9), at page 4 (Bates No. 000403) and pages 36-40 (Bates Nos. 000435-000439). 111 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request No. 2-20. 64 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 Thus, Verizon waits until there is a request to have a particular copper drop 2 reconnected, and at that time determines whether the copper facility is still in 3 usable condition. That being said, this practice appears to conform to the FCC’s 4 interconnection rules that apply to this situation, which state that: 5 “The incumbent LEC must maintain the existing copper loop connected 6 to the particular customer premises after deploying the fiber-to-the-home 7 loop,” but “need not incur any expenses to ensure that the existing 8 copper loop remains capable of transmitting signals prior to receiving a 9 request for access…in which case the incumbent LEC shall restore the 10 copper loop to serviceable condition upon request.”112 11 12 I note that CLEC intervenors Covad and XO have expressed the same conclusion 13 in their 2007 Petition to the FCC regarding the disposition of ILEC copper 14 facilities.113 15 16 Q. OPC’s Initial Petition (at pages 7-8) raised the issue of whether Verizon’s 17 disposition of copper facilities during FiOS service installations amounted to 18 “copper retirements,” have you investigated that issue? 19 A. Yes. In response to OPC and other party discovery, Verizon has clarified the 20 policies and procedures it applies to copper drops during FiOS service 21 installations in Maryland, as I have just elaborated. Once disconnected, those 22 copper drops are no longer an active component of the network, and are not 23 subject to any on-going monitoring or maintenance by Verizon. However, I have 24 not seen any evidence that they are any more vulnerable to deterioration than 112 See 47 C.F.R. 51-319(a)(3)(iii), subparts (A) and (B). 113 See XO Communications, LLC, Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al, Petition for Rulemaking, filed with the FCC on January 18, 2007, at page 18. This Petition is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-44. 65 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 copper drops that are still in use, and they do appear to remain available for future 2 re-connection and re-use, upon a consumer’s request to obtain a copper UNE- 3 based voice service from a CLEC, for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, 4 my conclusion is that Verizon’s current copper drop procedures do not equate to a 5 “retirement” of copper facilities. 6 7 Furthermore, in response to specific questioning concerning its copper retirements 8 policy, Verizon has stated that “Verizon Maryland has not made a determination 9 to retire copper loops”114 and, in a supplemental response, that “Verizon reiterates 10 that it has not made a determination to retire copper loops, feeder, or subloop 11 while it deploys fiber loops.” 115 In the event that Verizon does decide to retire 12 any copper loop facilities that are displaced by the FTTP network, CLECs’ ability 13 to provide competitive voice services based on Verizon wholesale loops will still 14 be protected by FCC rules that address that situation. First, the FCC requires an 15 incumbent LEC (“ILEC”) to make public disclosures of its intentions to retire 16 such copper loop facilities, and allows interested parties such as CLECs to oppose 17 an ILEC’s proposed retirements.116 Second, the FCC requires that an ILEC make 18 available to CLECs, on an unbundled basis, a 64-kbps digital channel over the 114 Verizon Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request 1-28. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-45. 115 Verizon’s December 21, 2007 Supplemental Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request 1-28. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-46. 116 47 C.F.R. 51-333 (“Notice of network changes: Short term notice, objections thereto and objections to retirement of copper loops or copper subloops”). 66 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 fiber loop that is suitable for voice service, whenever the ILEC elects to retire 2 copper loops as a result of an FTTP network overbuild.117 3 4 Moreover, apart from the competitive issues, I do not see any consumer benefits 5 in retaining the copper facilities displaced by Verizon’s FiOS service installations 6 in a non-retired, idled state. In particular, while public safety and emergency 7 preparedness would theoretically be enhanced by the presence of physically- 8 separated, redundant telecommunications networks, unless the copper loop 9 facilities displaced by Verizon’s FiOS service installations were kept in active use 10 (either by Verizon or a CLEC) as part of actual telecommunications and/or 11 information services, they would not effectively contribute to addressing those 12 concerns. 13 14 Q. OPC’s Initial Petition (at pages 7-8) also raised the issue of whether 15 Commission rules governing Verizon’s retirement of copper facilities should 16 be adopted, do you have any comments on this issue? 17 A. Based on the considerations in my discussion above on Verizon’s disposition of 18 copper facilities during FiOS service installations, I do not recommend that the 19 Commission should consider adopting any new rules concerning Verizon’s copper 20 facilities retirements at this time. However, the Commission should continue to 21 monitor Verizon’s treatment of copper facilities that are disconnected due to FiOS 117 47 C.F.R. 51-319(a)(3)(iii), subpart (C). See also, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, and 98-147, rel. August 21, 2003 (“Triennial Review Order”), at paras. 273-284, esp. para. 277. 67 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 service installations, and stand ready to take action if Verizon begins to retire such 2 plant in a manner that adversely impacts Maryland consumers’ ability to obtain 3 regulated telecommunications services. 4 5 Q. Does the disconnection of consumers’ copper drops by Verizon have any 6 potential negative consequences for competition in the provision of voice 7 telephone services to those consumers? 8 A. Yes. Verizon states that it does not assess any charge on a consumer or a CLEC 9 in the event that a consumer’s copper drop must be reconnected in order to allow 10 a CLEC to obtain a copper unbundled network element (“UNE”) loop for the 11 provision of a competitive voice telephone service requested by the consumer.118 12 While the absence of overt charges mitigates one potential issue this area, another 13 problem arises due to the manner in which Verizon’s wholesale service ordering 14 mechanisms process a CLEC request for a copper UNE loop to acquire a Verizon 15 customer, when the customer has been migrated to the FTTP network and no 16 longer has a working copper loop in place. 17 18 Q. Please explain the problem with how Verizon’s wholesale service ordering 19 and provisioning mechanisms handle a CLEC request for a copper UNE loop 20 to acquire a Verizon residential customer, when the customer no longer has a 21 working copper loop in place after FiOS has been installed. 118 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 3-4; see also Verizon Response to City of Baltimore Data Request 1-2, and Verizon Response to Staff Data Request 1-11. These data responses are reproduced in my Exhibits SCL-47, SCL-48, and SCL-49, respectively. 68 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 A. In response to a data request propounded by the Administrative Law Judge 2 (“ALJ”) in a 2007 California Public Utilities Commission (“CA PUC”) 3 proceeding, Verizon’s affiliate Verizon California, Inc. supplied an overview of 4 its procedures to re-establish a copper loop (for which the drop has been 5 disconnected pursuant to a FiOS installation) in the event of a CLEC order for a 6 copper UNE loop.119 In the instant case, Verizon has confirmed that its 7 procedures in Maryland adhere to that description: 8 Verizon states that there are no differences between the general 9 procedures described [by Verizon California, Inc.] on pages A-3 and A- 10 4 referenced above and Verizon Maryland’s procedures for ordering (or 11 migrating from FTTP based service) and provisioning a UNE loop.120 12 13 The relevant portion of the Verizon California data response reads as follows:121 14 CLEC - UNE Loop Ordering and Provisioning 15 16 1. When a CLEC orders a UNE loop from Verizon (irrespective of whether 17 the customer is currently connected via fiber or copper), it must submit a 18 Local Service Request (LSR) to port the customer’s local number to the 19 CLEC and establish the UNE loop connection. 20 119 “Additional Comments and Information Request Responses of Verizon California, Inc. (U 1002 C),” filed October 17, 2007; Attachment A, Verizon California Inc.’s October 16, 2007 Responses to Additional Information Requests Propounded at the October 5, 2007 Prehearing Conference P at pages A-3 to A-4 (“CLEC - UNE Loop Ordering and Provisioning” section). in Petition of the California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1708.5 to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal Regulations Governing the Retirement by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers of Copper Loops and Related Facilities Used to Provide Telecommunications Services”, California PUC Docket No. P.07-07-00. The response also describes the process to reconnect a copper drop at a consumer’s request, at page A-3 (“End User/Consumer Return to Copper Process”). The full Verizon California filing is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-50. 120 Verizon Response to OPC Data Request 5-3. This response is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL- 51. 121 See Verizon California, “CLEC - UNE Loop Ordering and Provisioning,” reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-50. 69 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 2. If the customer is currently connected via copper, there may not be a 2 need to dispatch a technician to the customer’s location and in that case 3 the transfer of the copper loop to the CLEC is accomplished by 4 performing a hot-cut in the central office. 5 6 3. If the customer is currently connected via FTTP, the CLEC receives a 7 response to its LSR from Verizon that the CLEC must request to have 8 the customer re-connected to the existing copper loop, given that the 9 consumer customer currently being served by fiber is not connected to 10 the copper network. 11 12 4. The revised LSR is automatically routed to a customer representative for 13 manual processing. 14 15 a. The representative will initiate a dispatch of a technician to the 16 customer’s location to re-connect the copper network (whether or 17 not a “copper drop” was removed). 18 b. Once the copper network is re-connected to the customer premises, 19 the CLEC can submit a request to migrate the customer to the CLEC 20 (port the number and perform the hot-cut in the central office). 21 c. Although standard charges apply for Verizon to connect CLECs to 22 new customers, neither CLECs nor customers are charged any extra 23 depending on whether or not a copper drop is in place. 24 25 5. While additional activities must be performed to process a fiber-to- 26 copper CLEC request than if the customer was initially on copper, the 27 order is processed within the normal UNE provisioning intervals and in 28 parity with the intervals for connecting Verizon’s own services. 29 30 The gist of the problem revealed in this data response is that the absence of a 31 connected copper loop after a FiOS installation causes a more complicated 32 ordering and provisioning process to ensue when a consumer decides to switch 33 their local telephone service from Verizon to a CLEC, compared to the stream- 34 lined “hot-cut” and number porting122 processes that can take place if the 35 consumer has remained connected to the Verizon POTS network via a copper 36 loop (and drop). 122 Number portability allows a local telephone service customer to retain their existing telephone number when they switch local service providers. 70 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 2 As suggested by Point 2 of the data response I cited above (“If the customer is 3 currently connected via copper…”), ordinarily when a CLEC is contacted by a 4 residential consumer seeking to switch their local telephone service from Verizon 5 to the CLEC’s competitive offering, the CLEC will often want to do this using the 6 “hot-cut” process, in which the cut-over of service from Verizon to the CLEC will 7 occur on a coordinated, near-simultaneous basis (a “hot-cut”).123 When properly 8 executed, this process can save both companies time and expense, and also benefit 9 the consumer by minimizing the time during which dial-tone is not available. 10 Ordinarily, the CLEC can submit a single LSR to obtain both the copper UNE 11 loop and the number porting to serve the consumer. In the Verizon East region, 12 which includes Maryland, the CLEC would submit a Loop Service With Number 13 Portability LSR for this purpose.124 14 15 However, when the residential customer’s voice telephone service has been 16 migrated to the FTTP network due to a FiOS installation and there is no working 17 copper loop, the hot-cut process cannot be undertaken directly. Instead, several 18 intervening ordering and provisioning steps have to take place first, including: 123 Verizon’s wholesale services on-line documentation describes the hot-cut as follows: “The term "Hot Cut" is used in the local exchange industry to describe the near -simultaneous disconnection of a Verizon working loop from a port on one carrier's switch, and the reconnection of that loop to a port on a different carrier's switch, without any significant out-of-service period.” See Verizon webpage “Verizon Partner Solutions – Hot Cut Processes,” http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/business/local/provisioning/coordination/1,,hot_cut,00.html (accessed 4/2/2008). This webpage is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-52. 124 See Verizon webpage “Ordering UNE Services: Loop Service with Number Portability,” http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/local/order/services/1,19406,une-uneloopnum,00.html (accessed 6/17/2008). This webpage is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-53. 71 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 x “[T]he CLEC must request to have the customer re-connected to the 2 existing copper loop” (see Point 3 of the data response); then, 3 4 x Verizon must “initiate a dispatch of a technician to the customer’s location 5 to re-connect the copper network” (see Point 4a); after which, 6 7 x “the CLEC can submit a request to migrate the customer to the CLEC 8 (port the number and perform the hot-cut in the central office)” (see Point 9 4b). 10 11 Thus in this circumstance, the CLEC has to submit at least two LSRs – one to 12 request re-connection of the copper loop, and a second to migrate the customer 13 (via the hot-cut and number porting), while Verizon must dispatch a technician to 14 the customer’s home to physically re-connect the copper loop (including 15 restoration of the disconnected copper drop).125 16 17 Q. Have any CLECs complained to Verizon that this “Two LSRs” process is 18 unduly complex and costly? 19 A. Yes. Verizon administers a national CLEC User Forum (“CUF”) that allows 20 CLECs to raise concerns about Verizon’s ordering, provisioning and maintenance 21 processes that may affect multiple CLECs, and work towards cooperative 22 resolution. In July 2006, AT&T Texas, who operates as a CLEC in Verizon’s 23 former GTE service territory in Texas, submitted what became CUF Issue #107, 24 “FTTP/Two LSRs,” complaining that Verizon’s FiOS-driven FTTP migrations in 125 Moreover, as implied by Point 3 of the data response, if the CLEC initially submits an LSR of the type that is ordinarily used when the consumer is being served by a copper loop (in Maryland, a Loop Service with Number Portability LSR, for example), Verizon’s wholesale ordering system will reject that LSR because there is no connected copper loop. However, the CLEC can avoid this “third LSR” step by checking whether the consumer is served by a copper loop or FTTP during the pre-ordering phase. See, e.g., page 17 of the 2007 CUF Issue #107 that I discuss immediately below. 72 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 that state were adversely impacting the UNE loop ordering process in the manner 2 that I have just described, “creating unnecessary delays in converting the End 3 User to the CLEC along with the additional cost to the CLEC required to process 4 multiple LSRs for this order activity.”126 Rather than reaching a resolution of this 5 issue, the two companies closed it on an “Agree to Disagree” basis in May 2007, 6 while AT&T Texas stated that they might reopen the issue if the volume of 7 affected orders increased. 8 9 Q. Would the “Two LSRs” process cause a residential consumer in Maryland, 10 who had previously undergone a voice migration to FiOS, to experience a 11 delay in their requested change of local service providers? 12 13 A. Yes, that appears to be the case. Like other ILECs, Verizon has in place 14 “standard intervals” (i.e. defined timeframes) for provisioning of wholesale 15 services such as copper UNE loops. These timeframes generally are defined in 16 terms of the maximum number of business days that can elapse between 17 Verizon’s receipt of a valid service order (LSR) from the CLEC and the “due 18 date” on which Verizon has committed to fulfill that order by having the ordered 19 services completed and operational. In Maryland, Verizon’s standard interval for 20 a hot-cut of a 2-wire analog UNE loop is five business days.127 Accordingly, 126 See Verizon’s “2007 Closed CUF Issues,” Issue #107 FTTP/Two LSRs, downloaded on 6/17/2008 from http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/local/cuf/, at page 16. I have reproduced Issue #107 in my Exhibit SCL-54. 127 See Verizon UNE Product Interval Guide, “Hot Cuts” tab, showing the standard interval for VZ-S (which includes Maryland), for 2-wire analog loops on a hot-cut basis as 5 Business Days 73 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 when a residential consumer who is still connected to Verizon’s network by a 2 copper loop (including drop) seeks to change their local service provider, they can 3 expect to wait five business days plus the number of days it takes the CLEC to 4 process their order and submit the associated LSR (of type Loop Service with 5 Number Portability) to Verizon. 6 7 However, when the residential consumer has undergone a voice migration to 8 FTTP due to a FiOS installation, they would have to wait several additional days, 9 reflecting Verizon’s UNE loop installation interval, because Verizon must first re- 10 connect the consumer’s copper loop, before the clock can start on the hot-cut 11 changeover of service to the CLEC.128 In Maryland, Verizon’s standard interval 12 for installation of a (single) 2-wire analog UNE loop is not defined in terms of a 13 specific number of days, but instead reflects the so-called “Greenlight Date,” 14 meaning that it varies depending upon the availability of the Verizon resources 15 needed to complete that installation.129 Nevertheless, all other things being equal, 16 those additional days would be experienced by the residential consumer as a delay 17 in their requested changeover of service to the CLEC, compared to the time it 18 would have taken had Verizon not previously migrated the customer’s voice for an order of 1-10 loops. This document was downloaded on 5/30/08 from Verizon’s “Product Interval Guides” webpage (http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/local/order/productintervalguides/1,,,00.html. The “Hot Cuts” tab is reproduced in my Exhibit SCL-55. 128 Note that the delay occurs because this additional provisioning step is required, not because Verizon would fail to meet its standard interval or that the interval itself would have changed. 129 See Verizon Supplemental Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request 1-44 (issued December 21, 2007) and Verizon Response to Covad and XO’s Data Request 3-13. These responses are reproduced in my Exhibits SCL-56 and SCL-57, respectively. 74 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 service to the FTTP network. The consumer may attribute that delay to the 2 CLEC, tarnishing the new customer relationship and the customer’s confidence in 3 competitive carriers’ ability to provide telephone service comparable to Verizon, 4 when in fact it was caused at root by Verizon’s decision to disconnect the copper 5 drop and the limited ability of Verizon’s wholesale ordering and provisioning 6 systems to respond to that situation. 7 8 Q. Have the CLEC intervenors in this proceeding supplied information 9 concerning their experiences with ordering copper UNE loops and acquiring 10 Verizon customers in Maryland in situations where Verizon has previously 11 disconnected the customer’s copper drop? 12 A. No, not as I write this testimony. To the extent any of the CLECs participating in 13 this proceeding provide such information in their testimony submissions, and 14 OPC finds it necessary to further address this issue, OPC will do so in its rebuttal 15 and surrebuttal testimony. 16 17 18 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 19 20 Q. Mr. Lundquist, based on the information provided in this investigation to 21 date and the testimony that you have just presented, what actions do you 22 recommend that the Commission take relative to Verizon’s voice telephone 23 service provided over its FTTP network? 24 75 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 A. As I have indicated earlier in my testimony, OPC may find it necessary to further 2 address issues subject to this investigation based on the testimony submissions of 3 other parties, and will do so ,to the extent necessary in its rebuttal and surrebuttal 4 testimony. With that caveat, my preliminary conclusion is that there are several 5 steps that the Commission should take to ensure that Maryland consumers can 6 make fully informed choices and are not harmed by Verizon’s policy of migrating 7 its voice customers to the FiOS/FTTP network whenever they order a FiOS 8 service. The areas that have the greatest impact on Maryland’s residential 9 consumers’ voice telephone service, are Verizon’s notification and consent 10 procedures relative to purchase and installation FiOS products. 11 12 First, Verizon should be direct to modify its customer notifications and disclosure 13 information concerning the migration of voice telephone service from copper to 14 fiber facilities as a result of the purchase and installation of FiOS products service 15 so that all customers are made fully aware that this change is taken place and the 16 consequences of the migration of their voice services to fiber facilities. To that 17 end, I recommend that the Commission require Verizon to post the model 18 customer disclosure statement provided in this testimony, in prominent positions 19 within each of the webpages and on documents that Maryland consumers will 20 typically review in the course of making a decision whether to purchase a FiOS 21 service. Those webpages and documents including the sales forms used in each 22 sales channel, the webpages describing FiOS services and answering “Frequently 23 Asked Questions” (“FAQs”), the FiOS Service Guides, and hardcopy promotional 76 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 mailings and the welcome package after installation, sent to Verizon customers. 2 In addition, I recommend that Verizon repeat that notification in the customer’s 3 first telephone bill sent after the voice migration, e.g. via a bill insert. Second, 4 after ensuring that its customers are fully informed about the voice migration 5 process, Verizon should be required to obtain verifiable consent from consumers 6 to migrate their voice telephone service to fiber facilities. For online orders and 7 any written forms used by Verizon or its sales agents (such as those used at “big- 8 box” retailers, Verizon wireless stores and kiosks), consumers should be asked 9 whether they understand and consent to the migration of their voice telephone 10 services to the FTTP network, as explained in the model customer disclosure 11 statement, and provide verifiable consent in the form of written initials (for 12 hardcopy forms) or checking off an appropriate box (for on-line forms). For 13 telephone orders, after being informed of the change by the Verizon 14 representative during the call, consumers should be explicitly asked whether they 15 consent to the migration of their voice telephone service to the FTTP network. 16 17 Regarding the anti-competitive impact of how Verizon’s wholesale systems 18 handle LSRs for competitive carrier copper UNE loop orders to acquire Verizon 19 customers who have been migrated to the FTTP network, to the extent that the 20 CLECs participating in this case supply evidence to show that the “two LSR” 21 issue is a significant problem in Maryland, the Commission may wish to direct 22 Verizon to work with the CLECs to find a workaround solution to minimize any 23 delay to consumers seeking to obtain a competitive local telephone service. 77 PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of Scott C. Lundquist MD PSC Case No. 9123 1 2 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony at this time? 3 A. Yes. 78 EXHIBIT G BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION’S * INQUIRY INTO VERIZON MARYLAND INC.’S * PROVISION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE * CASE NO. 9123 TELEPHONE SERVICE OVER FIBER * OPTIC FACILITIES. * * DIRECT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS OF ANNIE M. ECKERT ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND June 19, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...... 1 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 3 Purpose of Testimony ...... 3 Background Information Concerning OER’s Tracking of Consumer Disputes ...... 4 Functional and Operational Differences of Telephone Service Provisioned Over the Fiber Network ...... 7 OPC ISSUES: Issue 1: The adequacy of Verizon’s consumer notice and disclosure of information about the functional and operational service differences of FiOS telephone service versus traditional service over copper facilities...... 11 Issue 3: Whether Verizon has engaged in and continues to engage in the tying of FiOS telephone service to the purchase of other FiOS services...... 24 Customer’s Requesting Return to Copper Service ...... 25 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 28 i 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 4 5 A. My name is Annie M. Eckert. My business address is 6 St. Paul Street, 6 Baltimore, Maryland 21202. 7 8 Q. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? 9 10 A. I am employed by the Maryland Public Service Commission, Office of External 11 Relations, as an Administrative Officer III. 12 13 Q. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. 14 15 A. I have been employed by the Maryland Public Service Commission (“PSC” or 16 “Commission”) for 26 years. During that time, I have held positions in various 17 divisions within the Commission. In 1991, I took the position of Utility Affairs 18 Specialist (“UAS”) within the Office of External Relations (“OER”). Since 19 January 4, 1995, I have held my current position of Administrative Officer. 20 21 Q. DESCRIBE BRIEFLY OER’S FUNCTION AT THE COMMISSION, AND 22 SPECIFICALLY THE POSITION YOU HOLD AS ADMINISTRATIVE 23 OFFICER. 24 25 A. Section 20.32 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) governs the 26 Commission’s dispute procedures. Pursuant to these procedures, OER is 27 responsible for investigating and responding to consumer inquiries and disputes 28 filed against all public service companies under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 29 This includes electric, gas, combination gas and electric, telephone, and water 30 companies. A dispute is defined as “a disagreement between a utility and a 1 customer regarding provision of utility service, disputed bills, billing practices, or 2 terminations of service.” Pursuant to COMAR 20.32.01.04F, OER is responsible 3 for initiating a review and investigation to resolve the matter at an informal level. 4 OER’s investigation includes but is not limited to (1) obtaining information from 5 the customer and utility; (2) reviewing applicable statutes, regulations and 6 company tariffs; and (3) mediating between the two parties. 7 As an Administrative Officer, I am one of two supervisors. My duties 8 include: 9 • Meeting regularly with OER’s Manager, who is the agency’s 10 spokesperson regarding caseloads and assignments, general office 11 procedures, and any issues that may need to be brought to the 12 Commission’s attention. 13 • Drafting letters for the Chairman’s signature regarding disputes filed with 14 the Governor and elected officials. 15 • Arranging for training for OER staff and developing form letters, talking 16 points, and fact sheets for OER staff to use in talking with consumers. 17 • Providing day-to-day guidance to six Utility Affairs Specialists (“UAS”) 18 regarding their cases and current Commission activities. 19 • Reviewing and assigning all written disputes filed with OER. 20 • Maintaining my own caseload and investigating consumer disputes. 21 22 Q. BRIEFLY ELABORATE ON THE EXTENT OF YOUR CUSTOMER 23 SERVICE EXPERIENCE WITH THE PSC. 24 25 A. I have been interacting with the public, by telephone, in person, and in writing for 26 seventeen years. In 2007, I personally investigated 442 gas and electric 27 complaints, 264 telephone complaints, three water company complaints, and 39 28 miscellaneous inquiries. Because of my efforts, service or billing issues have 29 been resolved and/or adjustments have been applied to a consumer’s bill by the 30 utility. 31 2 1 Q. HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE PUBLIC 2 SERVICE COMMISSION? 3 4 A. Yes. In 1998 I provided testimony in Case No. 8776, In the Matter of the Inquiry 5 into Certain Unauthorized Practices by Telephone Service Providers. 6 7 8 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 10 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND 11 RECOMMENDATIONS. 12 13 A. After performing my own analysis of the answers that have been supplied by 14 Verizon to Staff’s data requests and reading the concerns that have been raised by 15 consumers who contacted OER, I have concluded that Verizon should not migrate 16 a consumer’s telephone service to fiber without first obtaining the consumer’s 17 consent. In addition, Verizon should be required to provide clear and conspicuous 18 notice to consumers regarding the telephone service conversion from copper to 19 fiber. The notice should be separate from any promotional offering or other 20 material that Verizon distributes to consumers regarding the two FiOS services 21 that are not regulated by the Commission 22 23 . 24 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 25 26 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING? 27 28 A. I will provide comments concerning Issue Nos. (1) and (3) included in the 29 Request for An Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the Investigation”) filed 30 by the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (“OPC”) on August 9, 2007. The 31 two issues are as follows: 3 1 (1) The adequacy of Verizon’s consumer notice and disclosure of 2 information about the functional and operational service 3 differences of FiOS telephone service versus traditional service 4 over copper facilities; 5 (3) Whether Verizon has engaged in and continues to engage in the 6 tying of FiOS telephone service to the purchase of other FiOS 7 services; 8 In addition, I will provide information concerning disputes that have been filed 9 with OER as it relates to this proceeding. 10 11 12 BACKGROUND INFORMATION CONCERNING 13 OER’S TRACKING OF CONSUMER DISPUTES 14 15 Q. HOW DOES OER TRACK CONSUMER DISPUTES IN GENERAL AND 16 SPECIFICALLY AS THEY RELATE TO THIS CASE? 17 18 A. The Commission’s Information Technology (“IT”) Department has created a 19 complaint database for OER’s sole use. All disputes are assigned a MPSC 20 complaint number for identification followed by a letter to identify how the 21 dispute was filed.1 For each dispute received, OER records the customer’s name, 22 address(es), telephone number(s), and a brief description of the dispute. In order 23 to track complaints, each dispute is assigned at least one “company code” and 24 “complaint code”. Since some disputes concern more than one company or issue, 25 it is possible for a dispute to be assigned two or more company codes and two 26 complaint codes. OER Staff is directed to choose the complaint code that best 27 describes the customer’s dispute. Exhibit No. 1 includes a list of the complaint 28 codes currently used by OER staff. As new issues occur, additional complaint 29 codes are added to the list and obsolete codes are archived. 1 Complaint numbers ending with an “O” symbolize an oral dispute; “W” is used for disputes filed via the Commission’s website, and “L” for all written inquiries. 4 1 2 Q. WHEN DID OER BEGIN TRACKING DISPUTES CONCERNING 3 VERIZON’S FIBER TO THE PREMISE (“FTTP”) PROJECT? 4 5 A. In 2005, OER began receiving disputes from consumers who complained about 6 Verizon’s FTTP project. At that time OER created a general complaint code, 7 “3333-FiOS disputes/comments”, to track disputes. OER received sixty-one 8 (61) 3333-FiOS disputes in 2005. However, all but one dispute 9 (MPSC#90574281-L)2 concerned issues outside the scope of this investigation. A 10 complete summary of all the disputes classified with the 3333 code that were 11 received over the period of January 1, 2005 to June 6, 2008 are included in 12 Exhibit No. 2. 13 14 Q. WHEN DID OER BEGIN TO TRACK CONSUMER DISPUTES THAT MORE 15 CLOSELY RELATE TO THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN OPC’S AUGUST 2007 16 REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION? 17 18 A. In late March or early April of 2008, OER created a new complaint code “7717- 19 Provision of telephone service (copper v. fiber)” to better track disputes that 20 more closely fit the issues being investigated in Case No. 9123. Once a new code 21 is created, it is not unusual to re-examine earlier disputes to identify older disputes 22 that need to be updated and reclassified with the new complaint code. A 23 summary of all the disputes with the 7717 code covering the period January 1, 24 2005 to June 6, 2008 are included in Exhibit No. 3. 25 26 Q. FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 2005, 2006, 2007 AND UP THROUGH JUNE 27 6, 2008, PLEASE PROVIDE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISPUTES 28 CLASSIFIED WITH THE 3333 AND 7717 CODES. 2 Customer filed written dispute September 7, 2005. Customer claimed they were offered “more reliable” telephone service if they purchased Verizon’s FiOS Internet or Cable service. After OER contacted Verizon, the Company switched the customer’s telephone service to fiber. 5 1 2 A. OER STATISTICAL REPORT OF VERIZON DISPUTES Complaint Code 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTALS 3333-FiOS 61 51 83 85 280 dispute/comments 7717- Provision of telephone service 1 2 10 23 36 (copper v. fiber)” 3 4 5 Q. PLEASE CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTES CLASSIFIED 6 WITH THE 7717 CODE ARE ALSO CLASSIFIED WITH THE 3333 CODE? 7 8 A. It is possible for disputes to have more than one complaint code. With this said, 9 21 disputes with the 7717 code are also coded as 3333. Likewise, 15 disputes 10 have been coded with the 7717 code and another complaint code. By doing this, 11 OER can print one summary report that contains all disputes concerning 12 Verizon’s FiOS service or we can print a targeted summary report that only 13 contains disputes concerning a specific issue. For instance OER also created a 14 code (7714) that is used for bundled billing disputes. If the bundled billing issue 15 concerned FiOS service, we would enter the following codes: 3333 and 7714. 16 17 Q. EXPLAIN HOW OER PROCESSES THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE BEEN 18 FILED AGAINST VERIZON. 19 20 A. For disputes filed by telephone or via the Commission’s website 21 (www.psc.state.md.us), OER will send the dispute electronically to a dedicated 22 email address provided by Verizon’s Customer Advocacy Group located in 23 Virginia. The Center Manager is our point of contact for urgent matters or cases 24 that need to be escalated. In general, all disputes are assigned to a Verizon 6 1 Specialist who is responsible for providing the response to the OER Investigator. 2 The written disputes are faxed to a dedicated number and handled in the same 3 matter. 4 5 6 FUNCTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL DIFFERENCES OF TELEPHONE 7 SERVICE PROVISIONED OVER THE FIBER NETWORK 8 9 Q. BRIEFLY STATE HOW VOICE SERVICE OVER VERIZON’S FTTP 10 NETWORK IS PROVISIONED DIFFERENTLY THAN VOICE SERVICE 11 OVER THE COPPER NETWORK. 12 13 A. Different interfaces are needed for the two services. Verizon technicians install a 14 Network Interface Device (“NID”) for customers who receive telephone service 15 over Verizon’s traditional circuit-switched telephone service (“POTS”) via the 16 copper network. 17 18 During FiOS installation, Verizon will install an Optical Network Terminal 19 (“ONT”) and ONT Power Supply Unit (“OPSU”), which is equipped with a 20 Battery Back Up (“BBU”). Unlike the NID, the ONT has a power cord that goes 21 into the customer’s home through the OPSU, where it must be plugged into a 22 standard electrical outlet. The ONT uses electricity that the customer is 23 responsible for supplying. Electricity supplied at the customer’s premise to the 24 ONT is needed to operate all of the services provided over the FiOS network. 25 26 Q. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE BBU? 27 28 A. According to Verizon, the BBU was added as a safety feature to supply the 29 customer with additional telephone support time (between four to eleven hours)3 3 Verizon’s response to Staff’s Second Data Request, Item 2-1. Verizon stated that in older advertisements “Verizon chose to advertise a four-hour supply because four (4) 7 1 in the event of a power outage or at any time when the customer does not have 2 electricity. (See Exhibit No. 4 - Verizon’s response to Staff’s DR #1, Item 1-22 3 and Exhibit No. 5 - Verizon Service Guide, Bates 000161 – 000171 included with 4 the Company’s response to Staff DR No.1, Item 1-21). 5 6 Q. HOW IS THE FiOS CONSUMER ALERTED TO THE FACT THAT 7 ELECTRICITY IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ONT OR THAT THE 8 BATTERY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED? 9 10 A. According to information that Verizon supplied in its response to Staff’s First 11 Data Request, Item 1-21, the OPSU contains a single indicator light that tells the 12 customer whether electrical power is present. In normal operation the light is 13 green. The BBU contains a series of indicator lights to tell the customer whether 14 the service is being powered by the customer’s home electricity or the battery. 15 The BBU also contains an audible alarm that sounds when there are any 16 problems. The BBU will shut down approximately one hour before the battery is 17 fully depleted. This is to save some battery life for emergencies. A consumer who 18 needs to make an emergency telephone call will have to press the Battery 19 Emergency Use button once to enable the ONT to reboot for up to one hour for 20 talk time for emergency calls. However, after the button is pushed all remaining 21 battery life is used. The customer is responsible for replacing the battery as 22 needed. The average life of the battery is between one and four years.4 23 24 Q. WHAT CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITY ARE THERE FOR CUSTOMERS 25 WHO RECEIVE TELEPHONE SERVICE FROM VERIZON’S FTTP hours was the lower operating extreme for the BBU under extremely cold conditions (e.g., 20 degrees Celsius or lower). At the other extreme, the BBU can support voice service for as many as 11 hours under normal operating conditions; however, the BBU generally is expected to last eight (8) hours.” 4 Reference Verizon Bates 000167-000170 included with Exhibit No. 5. 8 1 NETWORK THAT DID NOT EXIST WITH SERVICE SUPPLIED THROUGH 2 THE COPPER NETWORK? 3 4 A. A customer receiving service via Verizon’s copper network is responsible for any 5 customer provided equipment (“CPE”) and for the repairs and replacement of the 6 inside wiring and telephone jacks. A customer receiving service through 7 Verizon’s FTTP continue to bear this responsibility. In addition the FTTP 8 customer must make available an electric outlet in an area where Verizon installs 9 the OPSU and BBU. The customer also is responsible for supplying the 10 electricity to operate this equipment. The customer must learn and understand 11 how the equipment operates and monitor the equipment to ensure electricity is 12 provided. Finally, the customer is responsible for purchasing and replacing the 13 battery in the BBU when the battery is dead.5 14 15 Q. DOES VERIZON PROVIDE INFORMATION TO FiOS CUSTOMERS ABOUT 16 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PHONE SERVICE PROVIDED OVER 17 COPPER VERSUS FIBER? 18 19 A. Verizon does provide information to customers after the customer orders the 20 service and the equipment for the service has been installed. The Verizon 21 technician will give the customer either a FiOS Internet Service Guide and/or 22 FiOS TV User Guide depending on which service had been installed. Included in 23 the Guide, along with information about the new service ordered, is information 24 concerning the differences between FiOS-based phone service and phone service 25 provisioned over the copper network. The Guide also obtains information about 26 the equipment that was installed, and tips for “troubleshooting” problems with the 5 Per Verizon’s answer to Staff DR 2-3, the approximate costs to the customer for replacing the battery is $16.95. Replacement batteries are available at major electronics outlets and home improvement stores. Verizon will provide customers who contact them with a list of battery replacement vendors. 9 1 service. After navigating Verizon’s website6 I found similar information on 2 troubleshooting for FiOS telephone service. 3 4 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS REGARDING THE LOCATION AT 5 WHICH VERIZON INSTALLS THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR THE FiOS 6 SERVICE? 7 8 A. Electricity is needed to operate all services on the FiOS network. For consumers 9 living in a multi-family dwelling, such as an apartment building or condominium, 10 Verizon may install the ONT and the BBU in an apartment utility room or closet.7 11 In some cases Verizon may install the equipment in the consumer’s living unit.8 12 Access is needed to monitor the ONT and BBU to ensure electricity is provided. 13 By placing the equipment in an apartment utility room or closet, the telephone 14 customer might not have easy access to this area. Also a misunderstanding may 15 arise as to whether the property owner or the telephone customer, who is the 16 tenant, is responsible for supplying the electricity and replacing the battery when 17 the equipment is located in the utility room or closet. 18 19 Q. DOES VERIZON HAVE A TARIFF PROVISION ADDRESSING THE 20 CUSTOMER’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY? 21 22 A. Yes. In October 2004, Verizon filed a tariff revision (General Regulations Tariff 23 P.S.C. Md. No. 201, E-9) to address the customer’s responsibility to supply 24 electric power and maintain “all necessary power wiring and power outlets at 25 convenient locations” to operate the FiOS services. The tariff also limits the 6http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/Phone/General+Support/FiOS+Phone/FiOS+Phone.htm. 7 Reference Verizon’s Internet Service Guide, page 3 (Bates 000021). 8 Reference “About Installation” video included at the following web address: http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/about+installation/about+installation.htm 10 1 Company’s liability for telephone service disruptions in the event of a commercial 2 power failure.9 3 4 5 ISSUE 1: The adequacy of Verizon’s consumer notice and disclosure of 6 information about the functional and operational service differences of FiOS 7 telephone service versus traditional service over copper facilities. 8 9 Q. DOES VERIZON ADVERTISE AND OFFER A PRODUCT CALLED “FiOS 10 TELEPHONE SERVICE?” 11 12 A. No. The only FiOS products available from Verizon’s website are the FiOS 13 Internet and FiOS TV. A consumer cannot purchase a service from Verizon 14 called “FiOS Telephone Service”.10 15 16 Q. NAME THE TWO FiOS PRODUCTS THAT VERIZON ADVERTISES AND A 17 CUSTOMER CAN ORDER? 18 19 A. A customer may order Verizon’s FiOS high speed Internet and/or FiOS TV 20 service. 21 9 The second paragraph of Verizon’s tariff (P.S.C. Md. No. 201, E-9) states that “In the event of a commercial power failure, the Telephone Company shall have no liability, including liability for any direct or consequential damages, for the resultant interruption of the customer’s service. The Telephone Company shall also have no liability for any damage to the customer’s premises resulting from the existence of the Customer- provided power supply, wiring or power outlet.” 10 See Verizon’s responses at 1 and 3, Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Reply filed November 16, 2007. For Item 1 Verizon writes: “Regulated voice service provided over the fiber optic facilities is not a FiOS product offering.” For Item 3 Verizon writes “As an initial matter, it is plain from Verizon’s web site that the only FiOS products available for purchase are FiOS Internet and FiOS TV, and that there is no standalone FiOS voice service product available for purchase.” 11 1 Q. EXPLAIN THE WAYS IN WHICH A CONSUMER MAY ORDER A FiOS 2 SERVICE. 3 4 A. A customer may order FiOS Internet or TV service either by calling Verizon’s 5 business office or from a Verizon website. In addition, Verizon may enroll new 6 customers via door-to-door sales solicitation; at a kiosk located at select Verizon 7 Wireless stores and at Annapolis, Columbia, Montgomery, and Wheaton Malls; 8 from retailers such as Best Buy, Circuit City and Wal-Mart; and through Verizon 9 sales agent partners such as My Cell, InTouch Concepts, and Atlantic Wireless.11 10 11 Q. HOW DOES VERIZON INFORM POTENTIAL NEW CONSUMERS (1) THAT 12 VERIZON WILL CHANGE THE CUSTOMER’S VOICE SERVICE TO FIBER 13 WHEN THE CUSTOMER ORDERS FiOS INTERNET AND/OR FiOS TV 14 SERVICE; AND (2) THAT A CUSTOMER’S VOICE SERVICE OVER FIBER 15 WILL REQUIRE A BATTERY BACKUP FOR WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS 16 RESPONSIBILE FOR MONITORING? 17 18 A. Verizon includes a statement, in very small print, on the advertisement material it 19 mails to consumers about the FiOS Internet or TV services when the service is 20 available in the consumer’s area. On some material that I examined, the 21 disclosure was at the bottom on the first page of the flyer or letter addressed to the 22 consumer. On other material, the disclosure is on the reverse side at the bottom. 23 24 For Bates 000180, included with Verizon’s response to Staff’s DR, Item 1-19, the 25 disclosure is on the bottom. It states “Verizon FiOS internet customers purchasing 26 Verizon voice service receives both services over fiber. Includes up to 8 hours 27 battery backup (for non-IP voice service only). Customer responsible for power 28 and replacement batteries.” For Bates 000181-000182 and 000185-000186 (also 11 (Reference Verizon’s response to Staff’s First Data Request, Item 1-23.) 12 1 DR Item 1-19), the disclosure is on the reverse side at the bottom. This disclosure 2 states: “FiOS Internet customers purchasing Verizon voice service receive both 3 services over fiber. Includes up to 8 hours battery backup (for non-IP voice 4 service only.)” However, there is no mention that the customer is responsible for 5 supplying the electric power or the replacement batteries. For Bates 000187, the 6 disclosure is hard to read but appears to be similar to earlier disclosures. A copy 7 of each Bates is included as Exhibit No. 6. 8 9 Verizon also includes information on the sales order forms that are used when the 10 company solicits customers via door-to-door sales or enrolls new customers at a 11 Maryland event where the Company has agents selling FiOS services. 12 13 Q. DOES VERIZON MAIL TO CONSUMERS, WHO ORDERED A FiOS 14 SERVICE, ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AFTER SERVICE IS 15 ORDERED AND BEFORE IT IS INSTALLED INDICATING THAT (1) 16 VERIZON WILL CHANGE THE CUSTOMER’S VOICE SERVICE TO FIBER 17 AND/OR (2) THE CUSTOMER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING 18 ELECTRICITY AND REPLACING THE BATTERY BACKUP? 19 20 A. Based on Verizon’s response to Staff’s First Data Request, Item 1-20, Verizon 21 does not send printed material to customers after service is ordered and before 22 installing the service. However, Verizon will direct customers to visit its website 23 at www.verizon.net/whatsnext to view the pending order request and review the 24 installation and other information provided during the ordering process. 25 26 Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER INFORMATION ON VERIZON’S 27 WEBSITE CONCERNING THE MIGRATION OF VOICE SERVICE TO 28 FIBER FOR CUSTOMERS WHO ORDERED FiOS INTERNET SERVICE? 29 30 A. If you go to Verizon’s website, http://www22.verizon.com/, click on the Internet 31 button, then FiOS Internet, and “About Installation”, you find information about 13 1 what you can expect when Verizon comes to your home to install FiOS Internet 2 Service. Included is a video that you can watch which provides some basic 3 information about FiOS installation and set up. Also under a section entitled 4 “What's included in a professional installation?” are five listed items under the 5 sentence: “On the date of your installation, a Verizon professional will come to 6 your home and install Verizon FiOS Internet Service. They will need access to 7 your home computer and will perform the following:” Following three bullet 8 items about the Internet installation are the following two sentences about voice 9 service: “Migrate any voice services on the current billing account to the Verizon 10 FiOS network. There is no additional cost for this, and it will not affect your 11 current monthly charges.” (Emphasis added.) 12 13 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CHANGES TO THE INFORMATION ON 14 VERIZON’S WEBSITE SINCE OPC’S AUGUST 9, 2007 FILING TO THE 15 COMMISSION? 16 17 A. Yes. OPC included with its filing Exhibit C, which is the FAQs page for 18 customers wanting more information about Verizon’s FiOS Internet service. On 19 July 20, 2007 (the date printed on the OPC Exhibit) this information included 20 more information than it did on June 2, 2008 when I last checked Verizon’s 21 website. On OPC Exhibit C there was a No. 5, which stated “What will happen if 22 I have multiple phone lines at my home that are on the same bill today? Will all 23 my voice services be put on fiber?” (Emphasis added) On June 2, 2008, I visited 24 this “FAQs” page and noticed that Question No. 5 had been removed. On the 25 updated version, Verizon provided information regarding the connection speed 26 and availability of technical support for the FiOS Internet service. However, 27 Verizon removed many of the other questions, including Question No. 5, which 28 addressed voice service for multiple phone lines. On June 2, there was no 29 information on the FAQ page concerning Verizon’s policy to convert multiple 30 phone lines to fiber at the time Verizon installs the FiOS service. (See Exhibit 31 No. 7) 14 1 2 Q. WHAT WERE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE “LIVE CHAT” ON 3 VERIZON’S WEBSITE? 4 5 A. I have mixed feelings about my experience. On the one hand the representative 6 answered my questions and was helpful. However, on the other hand, the 7 representative’s answers were vague. When I asked the question “Will there be 8 any changes to my telephone?” if I ordered the FiOS Internet the representative 9 did tell me that Verizon would replace the “older copper line” with a “fiber optic 10 line”. However, when I asked him “What does that mean to me?” he clearly stated 11 that “It will not affect your telephone service at all.” Had I been a new customer 12 and dropped off the conversation, I would never have learned about the 13 installation of the ONT or BBU. It was not until I specifically asked “Does 14 Verizon have to install new equipment for my telephone service? What 15 equipment?” that the representative told me about the ONT and BBU. Also of 16 concern is that the representative never explained that I would be responsible for 17 supplying the electricity needed to operate this equipment or that I would be 18 responsible for replacing the battery in the BBU. I even asked him point blank 19 “Do I have to do anything with this equipment? Is there anything else about the 20 equipment that I need to know?” He did refer me to the “About Installation” 21 video after I asked him if there was more information available on-line. (Exhibit 22 No. 8) 23 24 Q. IN YOUR OPINION IS THE INFORMATION ON VERIZON’S WEBSITE 25 READILY AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS? 26 27 A. As stated above, Verizon does include some information on its website regarding 28 the migration of the voice service to fiber. However, the information needs to be 29 more prominent and clearer. The information on Verizon’s website is not always 30 easy to find, and it is not readily available. By directing consumers to its website, 31 Verizon places the burden on the consumer to search for information rather than 15 1 supplying the information directly to them. Also by directing the consumer to its 2 website, there is an assumption that the consumer already has access to the 3 Internet or that the consumer is going to go to the Internet to read this very 4 important information. New Internet subscribers or consumers placing orders for 5 the TV service only may not have access to the Internet. Whether or not 6 consumers have access to the Internet is not the only concern. Consumers should 7 not have to spend time navigating Verizon’s website to find important 8 information about changes that will be made to their telephone service. This 9 information is buried in other terms and conditions about the Internet or TV 10 service. Important information can easily be missed or disregarded as 11 unimportant. Most customers who order the FiOS Internet or TV service are 12 going to be looking for information about packaging, pricing, and installation of 13 the Internet or TV service. They have no reason to look for information about 14 changes to the telephone service unless they have requested a change in their 15 telephone service. Verizon needs to furnish information about the migration of 16 the telephone service to fiber to new customers before the FiOS service is 17 installed, and the information furnished needs to be clear and easy to understand. 18 19 Q. WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE CONSUMER 20 RECEIVING VOICE SERVICE OVER VERIZON’S FTTP NETWORK 21 VERSUS COPPER THAT CONCERNS YOU? 22 23 A. The customer is responsible for supplying the electricity to the ONT and replacing 24 the battery as needed. Since this is a new responsibility to consumers, they need 25 to be properly informed so that they can make an informed decision. This is 26 especially critical for consumers who live in areas where they loose electric power 27 frequently. Those consumers need to understand fully that the BBU will only 28 provide a limited amount of talk time during commercial power outages and that 29 they are responsible for monitoring the BBU and replacing the battery as needed. 30 16 1 Q. HAS OER RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM CONSUMERS WHO RAISED 2 ANY CONCERNS ABOUT HOW VERIZON DISCLOSES INFORMATION 3 TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE PROVISIONING OF TELEPHONE 4 SERVICE OVER FIBER? 5 6 A. OER has received some comments from consumers who requested that Verizon 7 return their telephone service to copper because they claimed that they “did not 8 know” or “were not aware” that the telephone service would be migrated to fiber. 9 A few consumers claimed that they did not understand that the telephone service 10 would not work without electricity or that there was a temporary battery backup 11 unit that they had to monitor. 12 13 The following are actual quotes from consumers who expressed an unawareness 14 or lack of understanding about the conversion of their voice service to fiber. 15 16 For MPSC#50786310-W, the customer wrote “I did not understand that, when 17 they said they were going to "upgrade" my phone to FiOS too, that meant having 18 my phone on battery backup if the power went down.” For MPSC#80788265-W, 19 the customer stated “When I purchased the service, I was under the impression 20 that I was to receive the Direct TV package but I was informed later by a Verizon 21 representative that I would be receiving the FIOS service to which I agreed to. At 22 the time, I was unaware that the telephone service was not available during 23 electrical outages and since my area frequently suffers from electrical outages for 24 indeterminate lengths of time, this was of concern to me.” (Emphasis added) 25 26 For MPSC# 20893663-O, the customer told the OER representative that he was 27 80 years old. He stated that he ordered the FiOS TV only, and he was not aware 28 that Verizon would switch the telephone service to fiber. This customer 29 experienced an electrical outage that lasted a day and half. He was concerned 30 because he lost telephone service after the battery backup failed. He wanted his 17 1 telephone service returned to copper because he needed 24 hour access to 911 due 2 to his age and health. 3 4 Q. DOES OER HAVE RECORD OF ANY CONSUMERS WHO RAISED ANY 5 CONCERNS ABOUT THE ONT OR BBU AND WHO REQUESTED THAT 6 VERIZON RETURN THEIR TELEPHONE SERVICE TO COPPER? 7 8 A. Yes. OER has heard from several consumers who ordered a FiOS service, and 9 then wanted to cancel because of concerns with the electricity requirement. In 10 addition to MPSC#’s 80788265-W and 20893663-O referenced above, OER has 11 heard from other customers who raised similar concerns about the BBU and loss 12 of telephone service during power outages. Below are actual customer quotes as 13 noted in OER’s files: 14 15 For MPSC#30785238-L, the customer sent a letter to Verizon’s President, Bill 16 Roberts, about her experience with FiOS service. Specifically the consumer 17 wrote: “On 14 February 2007, as a result of a wide spread ice storm, my home 18 lost power for an aggregate of 25 hours over two days. As a result of the power 19 outage, I lost telephone service for approximately 16 hours.” The customer went 20 on to write: “Because the extended loss of telephone connection is directly 21 related to the conversion from analog (copper) telephone connection to FiOS, I 22 have requested that my telephone service be returned to an analog connection. 23 That request was denied by the Verizon Fiber Resolution Board.12 The reason 24 given for not reverting my telephone connection to copper (analog) was that “you 25 only lost power once with FiOS” is patently ridiculous. After 21 years of Verizon 26 telephone service, my home has had more than ten electrical (missing word) long 27 enough to exhaust a FiOS backup battery. During none of those outages did I lose 28 telephone service.” 12 Verizon technicians are required to identify the customer’s issue and reason why they are requesting a return to copper. If the technician cannot find a resolution, they are to escalate to the appropriate Verizon customer support team who is responsible for approving or denying the customer’s request to revert the service to copper. 18 1 2 In sum, the customer has noted that prior to the migration of their voice service to 3 fiber they lost power 10 times and never lost telephone service. Shortly after the 4 conversion to fiber, they lost power for two days and were without telephone 5 service for 16 hours. (Exhibit No. 9)13 6 7 For MPSC#100789974-W, the consumer stated that Verizon was “forcing” him to 8 remove the copper phone service. In addition the customer expressed concern 9 about the BBU. Specifically he wrote: “I'm told by the rep that they will remove 10 my cooper [sic] service and I will only have an 8 hour backup battery for phone 11 service. I THINK THIS IS APPAULING and unsafe. I've had power outages 12 longer than 8 hours. IN the event of an emergency what is my family to do. I 13 would like to see verizon not force it's customers to get telephone FIOS if they 14 only want tv and internet. “ 15 16 In MPSC# 120791495-L, the customer provided the Commission a copy of a 17 letter they wrote to Verizon. (Exhibit No. 10) This customer expressed concern 18 about Verizon changing the phone service to fiber from copper. Customer stated 19 that he/she suffers extended power outages, lasting three to five days, on a regular 20 basis. The customer expressed concern about not being able to call 911 because 21 of limited life of the battery in the BBU. The customer requested that Verizon 22 restore the telephone service to copper. For MPSC# 30893910-O, the customer 23 told the OER representative that for medical reasons they could not have 24 telephone service on fiber. 25 26 Q. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY DISPUTES CONCERNING A CONSUMER’S 27 INABILITY TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER TELEPHONE PROVIDER 13 The customer’s comments were noted on pages 1 and 2 of the letter to Mr. William Roberts. Also included in the customer’s letter are comments regarding other problems with the FiOS order, installation, and obtaining information about the equipment that had been installed by Verizon. 19 1 BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONING OF TELEPHONE SERVICE OVER 2 VERIZON’S FIBER NETWORK? 3 4 A. We have received a few disputes from consumers who claimed that they could not 5 switch service to another provider or they expressed concern about whether they 6 would be able to obtain service after Verizon removes the copper service. Below 7 are actual customer quotes as noted in OER’s records: 8 9 In MPSC#10676829-W, the customer writes: “One Touch Communications is not 10 on your list. I have 2 addresses for them P.o. Box 7315, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 11 and P.O. Box 3000, Hicksville, NY 11802. We have NO dial tone, because this 12 phone company lied to us by saying they could handle FIOS service. This is 13 propreitary to Verizon, yet Verizon disconnected us knowing or should have 14 known that this CLEC couldn’t provide the service. NOW Verizon will not 15 reconnect us with either copper wire or FIOS. We have been without Residential 16 phone since 12/22/2005. I think it’s punishment for trying to sign with a CLEC. 17 There have been at least 8 orders to reconnect, but they keep getting cancelled. “14 18 (Emphasis added) 19 20 MPSC#10783835-L was a referral from the Attorney General’s Office. The 21 customer wrote a letter expressing concern about Verizon’s policy to remove 22 copper service. (Exhibit No. 11) The customer felt that it would affect 14 OER received a response from Verizon, dated January 24, 2006. In the response, Verizon advised “FTTP/FiOS is a Verizon offered service. No other CLEC can offer the service. Spectrotel promised they could supply the service, which was not the case. In working to reinstate the service, copper was no longer available so the service had to be run back in as FiOS and the copper Spectrotel order cancelled.” Also on February 2, 2006, OER received a response from One Touch d/b/a Spectrotel. The Company stated that “ONE Touch proceeded with the order based on the fact it was a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line. ONE Touch did not become aware that it was a Fiber Optic line until a Verizon Technician was dispatched out for a no dial tone issue on December 23, 2005. I would like to assure you if the CSR would have revealed Mr. ______’s line was fiber optic, ONE Touch would have contacted Mr. ______to advise him that we do not provide service to fiber optic lines and his order will be canceled.” This customer was reinstated with Verizon’s FiOS voice service. 20 1 competition, and she wanted to know if Verizon’s policy to remove copper was 2 legal. 3 4 For MPSC#10892695-L, the customer wrote a letter stating that he/she ordered 5 Verizon’s FiOS Internet and TV service. The customer had two telephone lines. 6 After the customer lost all services, including the two telephone lines, they 7 discovered that Verizon switched their telephone lines to fiber. The customer 8 requested our office’s assistance in having Verizon return the voice service to 9 copper since this was a medical office, and the customer could not risk loosing 10 telephone service. OER was able to assist the customer in having the copper 11 service restored. The customer called OER and stated that the fact her phone was 12 on fiber prevented her from being able to switch to AT&T. She did not file a 13 dispute since her service was returned to copper. However, she claimed that 14 AT&T told her that they could not switch her service once she told them her 15 service was on fiber. (Exhibit No. 12) 16 17 Q. ARE THERE ANY ADVANTAGES TO CUSTOMERS RECEIVING VOICE 18 SERVICE OVER THE FTTP NETWORK? 19 20 A. Unlike copper, fiber is impervious to water damage. According to Verizon, fiber 21 repairs can be done more quickly, which may reduce the amount of time a 22 customer is out of service.15 23 24 Q. HAVE YOU HEARD FROM ANY CONSUMERS WHO REQUESTED 25 TELEPHONE SERVICE OVER THE FTTP NETWORK TO RESOLVE A 26 REPAIR PROBLEM? 27 28 A. OER does have record of a few consumers who either requested that Verizon 29 change the telephone service to copper to improve reliability or who were told 30 that they could “upgrade” the service if they ordered FiOS. For MPSC#90574281- 15 Reference Verizon’s response to question 1-1 of Staff’s Data Request. 21 1 L, the customer claimed that she was offered "more reliable" service if she 2 subscribed to Internet, as well as future TV through FIOS. (Exhibit No. 13) The 3 customer went on to claim that “If she stays with existing service, she would need 4 to still use the 35 year old wiring.” For MPSC #120683444-W, the customer 5 complained about frequent telephone outages. Accordingly the customer said that 6 ”Verizon technicians report that the problem is in the wire servicing the 7 neighborhood and will not be corrected until the wire is replaced (reportedly 6 8 months) or I connect to their fibreoptic [sic] cable which is in the neighborhood.” 9 Finally for MPSC# 10892788-W, a customer said that “For the past two years, we 10 have tried to get Verizon to fix a problem with our telephone line. It is an 11 intermittent problem, in which early in a call -- either outgoing or incoming -- you 12 will hear a short buzz and sometimes the call comes back, but usually the call is 13 dropped.” Moreover, the customer stated “Two people at Verizon I talked to said 14 the company could replace our line with a FIOS line. Three people at Verizon I 15 talked to said they would only provide FIOS if we got phone, internet and TV 16 service together. Finally, I asked to be transferred to the copper line repair desk. 17 That last person said they would not come out to fix our line unless it completely 18 died.” 19 20 Q. DOES VERIZON OBTAIN AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT FROM A CONSUMER 21 PRIOR TO SWITCHING THE CUSTOMER’S TELEPHONE SERVICE TO 22 FiOS? 23 24 A. Verizon does not obtain affirmative consent from the consumer prior to switching 25 the voice service to fiber. In response to OPC’s Second Data Request, Item 2-3, 26 Verizon acknowledged that there is no standard consent form used by Verizon to 27 document that a consumer consented to the voice migration to fiber. However, 28 Verizon stated that “the fact that residential customers elect to have FiOS Internet 29 or TV services installed after receiving multiple forms of written and verbal 30 notification that their voice service will be migrated to fiber is direct evidence of 31 those customers’s consent to the migration.” Based on Verizon’s statement, 22 1 consumer consent is implied upon the consumer’s acceptance of the FiOS Internet 2 or TV service and after the installation of the service in the consumer’s home or 3 office. 4 5 Q. HAS OER HEARD FROM ANY CONSUMERS WHO CLAIMED THEY DID 6 NOT GIVE CONSENT FOR VERIZON TO MIGRATE TELEPHONE 7 SERVICE TO FIBER? 8 9 A. Yes. For MPSC#50786310-W, the customer wrote in its dispute to OER that “I 10 did not understand that, when they said they were going to ‘upgrade’ my phone to 11 FiOS too, that meant having my phone on battery backup if the power went down. 12 If I’d understood about the battery back up, I never would have allowed the 13 ‘upgrade.’” The consumer said “Even assuming that I should have realized from 14 the terms and conditions of FiOS Internet that I was losing the old phone line and 15 getting battery backup, don’t I have some sort of 30 days buyer’s remorse to 16 rescind my order and get my old phone line back?.” For MPSC# 70680604-W, 17 the customer claimed “Verizon implemented an order for fiber (Fios) service on 18 my home phone without my request, permission or knowledge.” Also, for MPSC# 19 80788781-L, the customer stated that he “requested FIOS Television service only. 20 Verizon tech came out installed FIOS television, telephone and Broadband. 21 Customer did not want Internet or phone service.” Finally for 22 MPSC#120791440-O, the customer claimed that when she called Verizon to 23 cancel long distance service, Verizon convinced her to switch from her current 24 cable provider to FiOS. She said that “she never signed any contract nor did she 25 receive anything in writing regarding terms and conditions of the service.” In 26 addition to wanting to cancel the cable service, the customer wanted Verizon to 27 restore telephone service to copper. She said that “The Verizon tech told her that 28 when the box beeps, she needs a new battery. Customer said she never asked for 29 this. She wants things back the way they were.” 30 31 23 1 ISSUE 3: Whether Verizon has engaged in and continues to engage in the 2 tying of FiOS telephone service to the purchase of other FiOS services. 3 4 Q. DOES VERIZON OFFER AN OPTION FOR CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE 5 VOICE SERVICE OVER THE FTTP NETWORK ON A STAND ALONE 6 BASIS AND WITHOUT SUBSCRIBING TO A FiOS SERVICE? 7 8 A. Not at this time.16 As stated previously, the only FiOS products that a consumer 9 may purchase from Verizon are the FiOS Internet and TV services. A consumer 10 cannot simply call Verizon and purchase a product called FiOS Telephone 11 service.17 12 13 Q. DOES VERIZON CHANGE A CUSTOMER’S VOICE LINES TO FIBER 14 WHEN THE CUSTOMER ORDERS A FiOS SERVICE? 15 16 A. Yes. It is stated on Verizon’s website and/or marketing material for FiOS Internet 17 and FiOS TV services that for customers “purchasing Verizon voice service 18 [they] receive both services over fiber.” In OPC Exhibit C, included in the 19 Request for Investigation, filed August 9, 2007, are the Frequently Asked 20 Questions (FAQs) Verizon made available on its website. For customers with 21 more than one telephone line, it stated “All fiber-compatible voice services will 22 be migrated to the FiOS network as part of your installation.” Verizon 23 acknowledged that the Company does migrate “all of the customer’s fiber- 24 compatible voice service to the FiOS network as part of the installation of the 25 FiOS Internet service.”18 26 16Verizon’s response to Maryland Office of People’s Counsel Second Data Request, Item 2-10. 17 Also, Verizon’s response at 3, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Leave to Reply, filed November 16, 2007. 18 See page no. 9, Item No. 13, of Verizon’s Response to Request of Office of People’s Counsel, dated August 31, 2007. 24 1 Q. HAVE ANY CONSUMERS COMPLAINED THAT VERIZON CHANGED 2 MULTIPLE LINES WHEN MIGRATING SERVICE TO FIBER? 3 4 A. For MPSC#10892695-L that was mentioned above, a doctor’s office filed a 5 dispute and stated that they lost service to all phone and fax numbers. After 6 reporting to Verizon they discovered that their telephone lines had been switched 7 over to FiOS. In addition, OER received the following dispute in 2006. For 8 MPSC#60680173-W, the customer said that he/she switched to Verizon FIOS 9 service for the main phone number. However, the customer was told by Verizon 10 that the second line had to be switched to fiber also. 11 12 13 CUSTOMER’S REQUESTING RETURN TO COPPER SERVICE 14 15 Q. WHY MIGHT A CONSUMER REQUEST THAT VERIZON RETURN 16 TELEPHONE SERVICE TO COPPER? 17 18 A. A consumer may request that Verizon return their telephone service to copper for 19 a number of reasons. The consumer may experience a technical problem or 20 dissatisfaction with the FiOS service. In addition, the consumer may find that 21 their CPE or alarm system is not compatible with the fiber service. Other 22 consumers may want to return to copper because of concerns with the electricity 23 requirement and battery backup unit. 24 25 Q. EXPLAIN HOW VERIZON RESPONDS TO CUSTOMER REQUESTS TO 26 RETURN TO COPPER SERVICE? 27 28 A. It is Verizon’s preference that once a customer is migrated to the FTTP network, 29 the customer should remain on the fiber network. 30 However, for customers who report a technical issue, a Verizon service 31 technician is to attempt to identify and understand the customer’s issue and find a 25 1 resolution. In the event the technician cannot resolve the customer’s request to 2 revert back to the copper network, the technician is to escalate the issue to an 3 appropriate customer support team that has the authority to approve the 4 customer’s request to revert back to the copper network. 5 6 Consumers who contacted OER were unable to have their service converted back 7 to copper so they sought our assistance. One consumer stated “Verizon service 8 people told me they’d "forward my complaint through channels" and that I’d hear 9 from them within 30 days. They also said that complaints like this are never 10 resolved in the customer’s favor.” (See MPSC#50786310-W). 11 12 Another customer who ordered FiOS said “When we asked Verizon to remove 13 redundant telephone wiring not being used, workmen come to our home and 14 threaten that once removed, Verizon will never reinstall it if we ever do not like 15 fibre [sic] optic service.” (See MPSC#10892575-W) 16 17 Q. IS OER AWARE OF ANY CASES IN WHICH VERIZON DENIED THE 18 CUSTOMER’S REQUEST TO RETURN TO COPPER SERVICE? 19 20 A. OER is aware of at least two incidents where Verizon denied the customer’s 21 request to return to copper. For MPSC# 40894755-L, the customer claimed that 22 he ordered FiOS Internet Service only. Previously the customer had telephone 23 service with a VoIP provider. However the customer had to cancel service with 24 the VoIP provider. He requested that Verizon reinstall the NID so he could obtain 25 service via the copper network. On May 14, 2008, Verizon responded as follows 26 to OER: “After further review of Mr. ______’s rebuttal Verizon stands by its 27 initial response that once Verizon installs FiOS at an address and phone services 28 connected by us will be on the fiber optic network.” 29 30 For MPSC#20784357-O, the consumer first contacted OER in February 2007. He 31 requested that Verizon return his telephone to copper service because his ADT 26 1 Security System was not compatible with the fiber service. On February 22, 2007 2 a Verizon representative stated to OER that “Mr. _____ was informed that his 3 request to have copper reinstalled has been denied by Verizon. It was explained 4 that most security companies including ADT have services and equipment that are 5 compatible with Fiber Optics. A number of security alarm companies offer 6 wireless security systems because technology is changing. It was further 7 explained that Verizon could not be responsible for providing products that are 8 not compatible to Verizon’s own products (i.e. security systems). Verizon 9 apologized that this information was not explained to Mr. ______during the sales 10 process.” 11 12 The same dispute was resubmitted to OER in August 2007 after the customer 13 contacted Congressman Wynn’s Office in June 2007. (MPSC# 80788892-L). 14 However, this time when OER contacted Verizon the Company advised that “Mr. 15 ______telephone services were switched back to copper on July 2, 2007.” 16 17 For MPSC# 30893910-W, the customer requested that Verizon restore copper 18 service for medical reasons. On March 11, 2008, Verizon responded to OER. 19 The Company stated that “I had spoken with Mr. ______on 3/5/08 and advised 20 that per his request, Verizon had invested in bringing FIOS to his premise. 21 Records show that the Customer had agreed to enroll with FIOS, as well as take 22 advantage of promotions and plans. Verizon advised that the only way we would 23 be able to convert order from FIOS to Copper would be to either switch back to 24 Global or another company of his choice; otherwise, he could accept Verizon 25 FIOS and apply for a change to copper which would possibly have a 30-day delay 26 and could still be denied unless there was a medical emergency.” [Emphasis 27 added] 28 29 Q. HOW WOULD OER HANDLE A DISPUTE IF VERIZON DENIES THE 30 CONSUMER REQUEST TO RETURN TO COPPER AND THE CONSUMER 31 CONTINUED TO ESCALATE THE DISPUTE? 27 1 2 A. OER typically bases its determinations on existing COMAR regulations, tariffs, 3 or PSC decisions. In this case, if no regulations, tariffs or PSC Orders govern the 4 issue at hand, OER would have no choice but to accept Verizon’s response as is 5 and tell the consumer we are unable to assist. The consumer would then have the 6 right to Appeal OER’s final determination to the Commission under Public Utility 7 Companies Article, §3-102, Annotated Code of Maryland, and COMAR 20.07.03. 8 9 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 12 Q. IN YOUR OPINION SHOULD VERIZON BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN 13 AFFIRMATIVE CUSTOMER CONSENT PRIOR TO MIGRATING VOICE 14 SERVICE TO FIBER? 15 16 A. Verizon should be required to obtain a customer’s consent prior to switching the 17 voice service to fiber. This is because the only two FiOS services that a consumer 18 may purchase from Verizon are FiOS Internet and FiOS TV. However, for 19 consumers who order one or both FiOS service, Verizon will change the 20 consumer’s telephone service to fiber. OER does not object to Verizon switching 21 a consumer’s telephone service to fiber. However, Verizon should be required to 22 obtain consent from the consumer prior to switching the voice service to fiber 23 because: 24 1. The customer is required to supply electricity to the ONT; 25 2. In case of power failure, 911 service (except through VoIP) will only be 26 available until the backup battery expires; and 27 3. Certain telephones, answering machines and other telephone equipment 28 not meeting industry standards may not work with service provided on the 29 Verizon FiOS network. 30 28 1 Q. WHAT TYPE OF NOTICE SHOULD VERIZON PROVIDE TO CONSUMERS 2 REGARDING (1) THE CONVERSION OF VOICE SERVICE TO FIBER; (2) 3 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CUSTOMER FOR SUPPLYING 4 ELECTRICITY AND REPLACING THE BATTERY? 5 6 A. Verizon needs to provide clear and conspicuous notice to all consumers who order 7 a FiOS service. The notice should be mailed or sent via email to new consumers 8 within three (3) days of their placing an order for a FiOS service and BEFORE 9 the service is installed. The notice is to inform consumers that: 10 1. Verizon will convert all telephone lines from copper to fiber for 11 Verizon telephone subscribers who place an order for FiOS Internet or 12 TV service; 13 2. That a Verizon technician will install an Optical Network Terminal 14 (“ONT”) and ONT Power Supply Unit (“OPSU”), which is equipped 15 with a Battery Back Up (“BBU”) in the consumer’s home. 16 3. Electricity to the ONT is needed to operate all Verizon services 17 provided on the FiOS network. 18 4. The customer is required to supply the electricity to the ONT. 19 5. The BBU installed by Verizon was added as a safety feature to supply 20 the customer with approximately eight hours of telephone support time 21 (including access to 911) in the event of a power outage or any time 22 when the customer does not have electricity. 23 6. The customer is responsible for replacing the battery backup as 24 needed. 25 7. Backup battery does not supply power for Internet, VoIP, or TV 26 services. 27 8. In case of power failure, 911 service (except through VoIP) will be 28 available until the backup battery expires. 29 9. Certain telephones, answering machines and other telephone 30 equipment not meeting industry standards may not work with service 31 provided on the Verizon FiOS network. 29 1 Verizon should be required to provide the notice as follows: 2 a) The written notice is to be on a page separate from any promotional 3 offering; 4 b) The text of the notice should be followed by a heading stating 5 ‘IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR TELEPHONE 6 SERVICE CONVERSION TO FIBER”. The heading should either be in 7 all capital letters equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in 8 contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser 9 size; and 10 c) Verizon must use plan language in the body of text that is clear and 11 unambiguous. 12 13 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? 14 15 A. Yes, it does. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technology Transitions ) GN Docket No. 13-5 ) AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning ) GN Docket No. 12-353 the TDM-to-IP Transition ) ) Connect America Fund ) WC Docket No. 10-90 ) Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service ) CG Docket No. 10-51 Program ) ) Telecommunications Relay Services ) CG Docket No. 03-123 And Speech-to-Speech Services for ) Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities ) ) Numbering Policies for Modern Communications ) WC Docket No. 13-97 ) ) Amended PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS And PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COMMENTS ON TRIALS AND DATA COLLECTION The People of the State of Illinois The People of the State of New York By LISA MADIGAN, By ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General Attorney General of the State of New York Susan L. Satter Jane M. Azia, Bureau Chief Public Utilities Counsel Keith H. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General Public Interest Division New York State Attorney General’s Office Illinois Attorney General’s Office Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection 100 West Randolph Street, 11th fl. 120 Broadway, Room 3B42 Chicago, Illinois 60601 New York, New York 10271 Telephone: (312) 814-1104 (212) 416-8320 Facsimile: (312) 812-3212 (212) 416-6003 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents I. Introduction – Scope of the People’s Comments ...... 1 II. AT&T’s Proposed Trials, While Limited, Highlight The Challenges Associated With The Carriers’ Plans To Transition Telephone and Broadband Service To An All IP Network...... 4 III. The IP Transition And The Continued Regulation of Providers of Telephone Service As Common Carriers...... 7 IV. The Commission Should Consider The Effect Of The Transition From TDM Service On Consumers And The Need To Preserve Statutory Core Values As Carriers Transition To IP Networks...... 10 a. Degraded Service Quality…………………………………………………….….12 b. Unavailable Service…………………………………………………………...…15 c. Changed Prices, Terms and Conditions…………………………………….……16 d. Loss of Telecommunications Regulatory Protections……………………… …..23 e. Effect of Loss of Wireline Service and Mandatory Cellular Substitution……....24 f. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………28 V. The Commission Should Require Extensive Reporting From The Major Providers Of Telephone Service So The Effects Of The IP Transition Can Be Identified And Addressed...... 29 VI. Conclusion ...... 30 I. Introduction – Scope of the People’s Comments The People of the State of Illinois, by Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and the People of the State of New York, by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, submit the following comments and recommendations in response to the Commission’s January 31, 2014 Order, Report And Order And Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, Report And Order, Order And Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal For Ongoing Data Initiative (Initiating Order) in this proceeding. In that Initiating Order, the Commission recognized that the networks that provide telephone, internet access, and video services are incorporating more and more Internet Protocol (“IP”) and digital functions and capabilities. The Commission invited carriers to propose experiments or trials to test and illustrate the effect of this transition to IP technology on the provision of communications services.1 At the outset, the Commission emphasized the importance of preserving the “network compact” that has been the foundation of national telecommunications policy and consumer protection. As the Commission stated: Americans have come to expect secure, reliable, and innovative communications services. The purpose of these experiments is to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by preserving the core statutory values as codified by Congress – public safety, ubiquitous and affordable access, competition, and consumer protection – that exist today.2 These Comments will address the effect that the shift from the use of time-division multiplexed circuit switch technology (“TDM”) to the use of IP-based technology for telecommunications services is already having on consumers – effects that the trials are intended 1 Initiating Order, ¶ 1. 2 Initiating Order, ¶ 1. 1 to highlight.3 While the incorporation of IP technology into America’s telecommunications networks is ongoing,4 it is only recently that efforts to replace legacy TDM services with IP and wireless substitutes have been initiated. The “trials” that are contemplated by the Commission’s Initiating Order represent a valuable attempt to monitor this process and to identify potential problems and unanticipated consequences arising from the transition. Today consumers are already facing the effects of that change. Some of these effects result from certain technological incompatibilities between legacy customer equipment and IP or wireless networks, or the elimination of some properties of legacy networks (e.g., an independent power supply, enabling service in a commercial power outage), while others can be traced to differences in the nature and extent of regulation of legacy versus IP-based services and to various pecuniary factors. In some cases, both conditions may be at play, as regulation has not yet responded to some of the technological effects that the transition may impose upon consumers. Issues facing consumers include that TDM-based voice telephone service is becoming degraded; carriers refuse or decline to repair existing service lines; consumers face new forms of telephone and Internet access service at both different terms and conditions (e.g., bundling requirements, call restrictions) and higher rates; and the functions available with their communications services change (e.g., access to emergency services such as medical alert services and security services; availability of telephone service and power in the event of commercial power outages; the ability to use a fax machine); and in some cases, consumers are losing the ability to obtain TDM-based or any other wireline telephone service at their residence 3 Initiating Order, ¶ 8 (“We emphasize that the goal of all of these experiments and initiatives is to learn about the impact of the technology transitions on the customers – and communities – that rely on communications networks. ¶ 2 (“We must act with dispatch. Technology transitions are already underway.”) 4 Initiating Order, ¶ 2 (“We must act with dispatch. Technology transitions are already underway.”) 2 or business from their traditional telephone company, or incumbent local exchange carrier (“ILEC”). Section II of these Comments addresses the scope of the trials proposed by AT&T and their relation to the IP transition. Section III describes the services at issue in the trials and the IP transition generally as services that transmit voice and other data or content without modification or change, and concludes that these services fit the statutory definition of “telecommunications” subject to common carrier regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section IV addresses the effects of the carriers’ implementation of technology changes in the major states of Illinois and New York, involving incumbents AT&T and Verizon, respectively. Section V recommends the collection of data in the trials but also more generally so that the Commission, state commissions, and consumers can both recognize the changes being implemented by the carriers and fairly assess their effect on consumers and the public interest. As the Commission stated: we endeavor to learn in diverse ways how the modernization of communications networks is affecting the achievement of our statutory responsibilities. And for that we need real-world data. These data will fuel the ongoing public dialogue about the technology transitions, ensuring that it is fact-based and data-driven. Having a robust and factually-informed public discussion will help guide the Commission as we make legal and policy choices that advance and accelerate the technology transitions while ensuring that consumers and the enduring values established by Congress are not adversely affected.5 The proposed data collection will allow future legal, regulatory, and policy decisions to be based on a well-developed factual record that is more comprehensive than the two proposed trials alone would generate. 5 Initiating Order, ¶8. 3 II. AT&T’s Proposed Trials, While Limited, Highlight The Challenges Associated With The Carriers’ Plans To Transition Telephone and Broadband Service To An All IP Network. To date, the only major carrier6 to propose trials is AT&T, and the two trials proposed are quite limited, calling into question whether they are sufficient to identify and apply lessons- learned to larger urban markets and to the country as a whole. One trial would take place in a rural wire center in Alabama, serving only 4,388 living units 7 and the other is based in a suburban wire center in Florida serving 49,712 living units.8 Overall, AT&T’s network covers 22 states from California to Wisconsin to Florida,9 with approximately 75 million living units.10 The trials will only affect 0.07% of the living units in AT&T’s service area, and only 2 of its 4700 wire centers. Nevertheless, the trials provide the Commission and interested parties a window into the transition process and are a reasonable vehicle for considering the technical and regulatory issues the transition to IP and to wireless voice and Internet access raise. In its Proposal, AT&T states that a [confidential] number of living units take wireline services, including both TDM and IP-based service, and asserts that “many customers already 6 For purposes of these Comments, the major carriers are AT&T, Verizon, Comcast. Each of these carriers except Comcast is an incumbent local exchange carrier or is a successor to an ILEC that developed its network as a protected monopoly. The state and federal statutory obligation to serve all customers persists in most but not all states. Comcast started as an incumbent cable television provider, providing video service under municipal franchises to provide video service universally. It expanded into telephone and Internet service as IP technology developed. It now sells telephone, Internet and television services over the network originally installed when it had a protected monopoly. 7 AT&T defines living units as: “business, residential, vacant and under-construction locations. Living units are the units network engineers use when designing and building communications networks because each living unit is a separate location that AT&T historically has been required to serve upon request.” AT&T Wire Center Trial Operating Plan at 3, fn. 4. 8 AT&T Proposal for Wire Center Trials at 13, 15 (filed Feb. 27, 2014)(hereafter cited as ÁT&T Proposal”) 9 AT&T is the successor of the incumbent local exchange carrier in the following states: California, Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Connecticut. http://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/22_state_map.pdf AT&T has entered into a contract to sell its Connecticut service area to Frontier Communications, which is now subject to regulatory review. 10 This figure is a rough estimate, based on AT&T’s statement that it expects to reach 75% of the living units in its 22 state service area, and that it expects to reach approximately 57 million customer locations with it expanded wireline IP-broadband service. See AT&T Proposal at 5-6. 4 have made the choice, even in rural areas, to transition away from the traditional TDM telephone network and services.”11 As will be discussed below, there are many factors leading consumers to end their subscriptions to traditional landline telephone service. The factors that drive consumers from traditional service should be considered in assessing both the trial in general and the number of wireline as opposed to wireless telephone subscribers at the trial starting gate. AT&T’s description of both the trial and its plan for its own IP transition provides an important context for the Commission’s evaluation of the trials and the transition in general. AT&T concedes at the outset that its “wireline IP network will reach approximately 75 percent of customer locations in our 22-state wireline footprint.”12 That means that 25% of the customer locations in that 22 state area – both business and residence – will be without an AT&T wireline option for either telephone or Internet access. A key question before the Commission is what options are left for this 25%, which could affect close to 20 million residential and business locations? How should this result be assessed in light of the core statutory values governing the provision of telecommunications? AT&T cites a wireless option for both telephone and Internet access in those areas where it does not intend to continue wireline service. Key questions are: (1) have consumers found the wireless home phone option to be a true and acceptable substitute for wireline telephone and Internet access services in other parts of the country; (2) in how many areas are there other wired options available, e.g., from municipal networks or cable networks, and are consumers using those options; and (3) what will be the effect on competition, even if it is only between two access providers, if AT&T withdraws wireline telephone and Internet access from 25% of the households in its 22-state service area? 11 AT&T Proposal at 13-15. 12 AT&T Proposal at 6. 5 Another set of issues highlighted by the transition and AT&T’s filing is that the IP network and the wireless network do not provide the same functionalities as TDM service.13 Functions that cannot presently be provided by one or both of these networks include the display of addresses when a call is made to 911 (wireless), or in some cases, the failure to route a 911 call to the nearest emergency call center; the use of home security systems, medical monitoring alert services, fax services, and credit card authorizations; and the availability of power for telephone service in the event of an extended commercial power outage.14 AT&T asserts that it is developing enhancements to its wireless services to address these services, and will not discontinue TDM service until those enhancements are achieved.15 If there were few or no functional limitations, consumers would ordinarily be indifferent to the technology that underlies their telephone and Internet access services. Just as television consumers view essentially the same content regardless of whether they use over-the-air, cable, IP TV or satellite technology, telecommunications16 consumers are purchasing the ability to make telephone calls and to access the Internet in order to send and receive conversation and content without modification or interference from the carrier. Consumers purchase the 13 The limitations of both AT&T’s IP based service and its wireless service are acknowledged by AT&T in its trial proposal. AT&T Trial Proposal at 19-20. AT&T’s web site includes information about battery backup and an option to check to see if the consumer’s security system or medical alert will work with Uverse Phone. See att.com – home phone – uverse voice – learning center at http://www.att.com/shop/home- phone.html#fbid=WHQuKlAVYOq?tab3 (battery backup) and http://www.att.com/shop/home- phone.html#fbid=WHQuKlAVYOq?tab3 14 AT&T Proposal at 19-20 (AT&T’s “wireless and wireline IP-based services …will support the vast majority of the devices and applications enumerated in Appendix B of the Transitions Trial Order.” AT&T states that it is currently developing a wireless service so businesses can use existing customer premises equipment; wireless home phone does not work with analog data devices and services, “e.g., home security systems, fax machines, and dial-up Internet service”) . These deficiencies and differences are expressly addressed by AT&T notwithstanding its statement: “But make no mistake, whether a customer subscribes to a wireless or a wireline broadband product, the capabilities of both of those services far exceed what is available in the circuit switched POTS environment.” Id. at 9. 15 Id. at 20-21. 16 The term “telecommunications” is defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as follows: “The term “telecommunications” means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” 47 U.S.C. 153(50). 6 transmission service provided by the network – not the underlying TDM or IP technology. However, consumers are sensitive to changes in capabilities, price, terms and conditions, and service quality. The two proposed trials will provide a window into how consumers respond to these changes, but due to the very small sample represented by the trials, the Commission should include in its analysis a consideration of how consumers throughout the country are being affected by the transition to IP-based service and the withdrawal of wireline telephone service in those areas where IP telephony is not being offered. III. The IP Transition And The Continued Regulation of Providers of Telephone Service As Common Carriers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed against the backdrop of extensive common carrier regulation of telephone service and Internet access. Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 638- 639 (D.C. Cir. 2014)(addressing the Commission’s “long history of subjecting to common carrier regulation the entities that controlled the last-mile facilities over which end users access the Internet”). While inviting competition in the provision of telecommunications services, including basic telephone service, Congress preserved the regulation of “telecommunications” under traditional common carrier regulation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines telecommunications as “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received,”17 and directed that a provider of telecommunications “shall be treated as a 17 47 U.S.C. 153(50). 7 common carrier under this chapter only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.”18 The Commission should assess the IP transition trials relative to how IP and TDM services meet essential telecommunications needs. The trials should identify specific technical differences and issues raised by IP and TDM capabilities, and provide guidance as to how these can best be addressed and overcome. While the Commission has indicated that it is not “seeking to resolve the legal and policy questions arising from the technology experiments,” 19 the Commission should take care to assure that differences in regulatory approaches do not affect its assessment of the transition. The complaints discussed below respond to the Commission’s request that the trials and data collection should address “how the modernization of communications networks is affecting the achievement of our statutory responsibilities.” 20 A key issue that repeatedly arises is whether providers of telephone service continue to be subject to state rules governing service and should be treated as common carriers. Federal law describes the obligations of a common carrier as including the regulatory obligations (1) to furnish communications services upon reasonable request,21 (2) to provide service at just and reasonable rates,22 and (3) to provide service without undue or unreasonable discrimination, preference or disadvantage.23 While the IP transition includes the use of Internet Protocol technology, the carriers providing telephone and Internet 18 47 U.S.C. 153(51). The full text defines telecommunications carrier as follows: Telecommunications carrier. The term ‘‘telecommunications carrier’’ means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226 of this title). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this chapter only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage. 19 Initiating Order, ¶8. 20 Id. 21 47 U.S.C. 201(a). 22 47 U.S.C. 201(b). 23 47 U.S.C. 202(a). 8 access services continue to provide “telecommunications,” i.e. the transmission of information “without change in form or content.”24 If an IP-based telecommunications service is offered as a functional replacement for a traditional TDM telecommunications service, its regulatory status and obligations should not change. In Verizon v. FCC, the Court held that a service that the Commission classifies as an “information service”25 cannot be subject to common carrier obligations as a matter of law.26 The extent of both state and federal power to ensure fulfillment of the statutory goals of universal and affordable service, public safety, competition, and consumer protection27 require that the public interest in unfettered access to communications services without discrimination or preference be protected. The Commission should consider how the provision of telephone service is being treated by carriers and the states, and ensure that it continues to be treated as a statutory telecommunications service with all of the consumer and network protections of common carrier regulation.28 Telecommunications services have historically been subject to federal common carrier regulation as well as state regulation29 and consequently concerns about network functions and 24 As defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(50). 25 47 U.S.C. 153(24) Information service. The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.” The definition of an “enhanced service” is a service that does not “employ computer processing applications that act on the format, content, code, protocol or similar aspects of the subscriber’s transmitted information; provide the subscriber additional, different, or restructured information; or involve subscriber interaction with stored information” 47 C.F.R. §64.702. 26 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d at 649. 27 Initiating Order at ¶ 1. 28 47 U.S.C. 153(51). 29 While there is no question that telephone services provided over the TDM network are subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, the Commission currently has before it the question of whether broadband Internet access should be classified as a telecommunications service under Section 153(50). See (see footnote 16 above for statutory text) or as an information service under Section 153(24)(“The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or 9 price, terms, and conditions of service have been subject to federal and state regulatory oversight. As part of its examination of the IP transition, the Commission should address the following specific questions: (1) do IP telecommunications services retain the same regulatory status and oversight as the TDM services they replace, or have the carriers treated them as unregulated information services, and (2) what has been the effect on price, terms and conditions, and service quality when a consumer accepts a change to IP telecommunications services. IV. The Commission Should Consider The Effect Of The Transition From TDM Service On Consumers And The Need To Preserve Statutory Core Values As Carriers Transition To IP Networks. Regardless of the fact that AT&T has proposed only two small trials and no other large carrier has proposed a trial, due to the business plans of incumbent carriers, consumers throughout the country have been facing the effects of the transition away from universal telephone service provided over the TDM-based network. As demonstrated by AT&T’s proposed trial, these business plans not only incorporate IP technology, but would redefine the carriers’ fundamental obligation to provide wireline service to all households universally and deviate from the “core statutory values” that have governed the telecommunications industry since the Communications Act was enacted in 1934. The trials and the Commission’s review provide a welcome opportunity to directly and comprehensively address changes that have been ongoing on a customer-by-customer basis for several years. In addition to gathering information and conducting analyses about the small scale the management of a telecommunications service.”) 47 U.S.C. 153(50) & (24). See Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C.Cir. 2014); In the Matter of the Appeal Decision in Verizon v. FCC, and What Actions the Commission Should Take, Consistent with its Authority under Section 706 and all other Available Sources of Commission authority, in Light of the Court’s Decision, GN 14-28, Notice of Feb. 19, 2014. 10 AT&T trials, the Commission and the States need to consider information from other locations and other incumbent carriers who today are incorporating IP technology into their networks to provide interstate and local telephone service. As state offices that regularly receive consumer complaints, the Offices of the Attorneys General have a window into how consumers are experiencing the IP transition. While other offices may have express jurisdiction to enforce state or federal telecommunications law,30 consumers come to their Attorney General when they need help. These complaints warn us about how the changes being implemented by the carriers are affecting consumers and give regulators the opportunity to address the real-world effects of carriers’ approaches to the transition to IP technology. While consumers also have the right to lodge complaints about telecommunications with the Commission,31 the Attorney General Offices of New York and Illinois receive a significant number of telecommunications related complaints annually.32 In addition, state public utilities commissions receive another set of complaints that in recent years approximate the number of consumer contacts associated with telecommunications service reported by the Attorney General 30 See, e.g., http://www.fcc.gov/complaints (the Commission online site for accepting complaints); 220 ILCS 5/4- 101 et seq (General Powers and Duties of the Illinois Commerce Commission); 83 Ill. Admin. Code 730 and 735 (Illinois Commerce Commission regulations governing telephone service); 220 ILCS 10/2 (Citizens Utility Board created to “promote the health, welfare, and prosperity” of residents “by providing for consumer education on utility service prices and on benefits and methods of energy conservation. Such purpose shall be deemed a statewide interest and not a private or special concern.” ). The New York Public Service Commission also receives telecommunications complaints, as does the New York Consumer Protection Board and the New York Attorney General. 31 http://www.fcc.gov/complaints. 32 In 2013 and 2012, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office received 1,870 and 2,240 telecommunications-related complaints, respectively, consistently ranking the third or fourth highest number of complaints. http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2014_02/20140211.html (2013); http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2013_03/20130305b.html (2012). In 2012, the New York Attorney General received 804 telecommunications related complaints, and 1,141 telecommunications related complaints were received in 2013. 11 Offices.33 The Commission reported 3,805 wireline related consumer complaints in the first quarter of 2013.34 In most cases, consumers are moved to contact the government for help only after they have tried, but failed, to resolve a problem with their carrier directly. Consumers generally do not understand the intricacies of telecommunications policy and law, but they know that they are entitled to secure, reliable and affordable service. Consumers also file complaints when they believe they have been treated unfairly, or when they believe that the carrier has made mistakes that it fails or refuses to correct. When these expectations are frustrated, they may turn to our offices. This is what we are seeing: a. Degraded Service Quality Consumers contact our offices when requests for the repair of their TDM service are delayed or not completed as expected. In many parts of Illinois, the incumbent carrier is AT&T. AT&T elected statutory “market regulation” in 2010. 35 While Illinois law requires AT&T to continue to provide certain basic landline telephone services in its service area, AT&T is also free to market other services, such as IP telephony under its U-verse brand and its wireless service.36 As the Commission’s Local Telephone Competition Report, Status as of December 31, 2012 shows, nationwide there were 42 million interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol 33 The Illinois Commerce Commission reports that in 2012 and 2011 it received 1,988 and 1,808 telecommunications-related complaints. The numbers for 2013 have not yet been reported. ICC Consumer Services Division Annual Report for 2012 at page 25, http://www.icc.illinois.gov/reports/report.aspx?rt=13 The New York PSC reports consumer complaints on a monthly basis. See Complaint Statistics – Office of Consumer Services, http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/448C499468E952C085257687006F3A82?OpenDocument 34 Summary of Top Six Consumer Informal Complaint Subjects Processed by the FCC’s Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau, First Quarter – Calendar Year 2013. 35 220 ILCS 5/13-506.2. 36 Id. 12 (VoIP) telephone lines and 96 million end-user switched access lines in service in 2012. 37 According to the 2012 Report, over the period from December, 2009 through December, 2012, “interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased at a compound annual growth rate of 17%, mobile telephony subscriptions increased at a compound annual growth rate of about 4%, and retail switched access lines declined at about 9% a year.”38 From December, 2011 to December, 2012, for ILECs only, nationwide, the number of interconnected VoIP lines increased by 46% while the number of switched access lines decreased by 14.75%.39 The reports for 2011 and 2012 show substantial increases in ILEC VoIP, particularly bundled with Internet (e.g., Alabama: 54% increase; Florida: 42% increase; Illinois: 30% increase; and New York: 87% increase).40 At the same time, the number of TDM, or switched access lines, is shrinking. (e.g., Alabama: 11% decrease; Florida: 14% decrease; Illinois: 11.6% decrease; and New York: 13% decrease).41 Are all of these customers making the move voluntarily? Consumer complaints indicate that at least some consumers are being moved off TDM service when the quality of service deteriorates, and some are being told that TDM, or traditional telephone service, is no longer available to them. For example, one complaint received by the Illinois Attorney General indicated that when the consumer’s line needed repair due to static so severe that it interfered with the ability to use the line, the consumer was shifted to IP U-verse Voice service. 42 While the consumer received clear service, she was charged a $99.00 37 Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2012, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, November 2013, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- 324413A1.pdf 38 Id. at 2. 39 Id. at Table 9 and Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2011, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, January, 2013 at Table 9, http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc- releases-new-data-local-telephone-competition-1 40 Id. 41 Id. 42 Illinois OAG File No. 2014 CONSC 00370133. The Utility Reform Network, a California based consumer advocate, filed a complaint before the California Public Utilities Commission on March 17, 2014, alleging that 13 connection fee for the “new” service, and saw her bill increase substantially, due in part to new terms and conditions that were not explained to her when her service was switched. Other consumers have complained to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office about stranger service quality problems, such as noise and static, lack of dial tone, phantom outbound calls, and inaccurate or inoperable special features and multiple people on the same line.43 While those complaints appear limited to TDM service, the reliability and quality of the IP-based service have also been questioned. Some consumers find the new U-verse Voice service to be unreliable44 and there are reports that the voice service is less clear than their former TDM service and more like a cell phone.45 While it is undisputed that IP-based telephone service may provide more functions than TDM service, the Commission should take special steps to assess the quality of service provided by IP voice. The clear quality of traditional TDM service is well known. The Commission and the carriers should require no less of IP based service. In New York, Verizon consumers whose TDM lines need repair have found their requests for repair either go unanswered or Verizon responds by trying to sell them its IP FiOS service or its wireless Voice Link service. Many months before Verizon’s facilities along the Atlantic seaboard were damaged by Hurricane Sandy, Verizon publicly stated its intention to migrate customers from copper to FiOS, its IP product, wherever the company installed fiber, and to migrate customers to wireless service everywhere else. Verizon was refusing to repair TDM service, and effectively forcing consumers to accept its VoIP product, knowingly or not. Emergency Motion of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Urging the Commission to Take Immediate Action To Protect Verizon Customers and Prevent Further Deterioration of Verizon’s Landline Network, CA PUC No. R-11-12-001, TURN Emergency Motion re Verizon. Verizon denies that consumers are being “forced” off its TDM network. See http://bgr.com/2014/03/24/verizon-fios-migration-accusations/ 43 Illinois OAG File Nos. 2014 CONSC 00369693, 2014 CONSC 00369069, 2014 CONSC 00369668. 44 Illinois OAG File Nos. 2013 CONSC 00368429 (elderly customer left without service due to repeated IP telephony outages); 2013 CONSC 00357899 (reliability). 45 Illinois Citizens Utility Board Case ID 00208538 (6/27/2013) (“the telephone service is now very, very noisy with a continuous load [sic] buzz.”); Case ID 00210560 (11/21/2013)(“phone line has poor reception, drops calls or has static noise.”) 14 Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam announced this new corporate strategy as follows: (T)he vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view. And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there. We are going to do it over wireless, not have a FIOS network, and force customers to accept wireless Voice Link. 46 After Hurricane Sandy, and in response to residents’ complaints about the lack of telephone service, the New York Public Service Commission held public hearings on Fire Island, New York. At that hearing, no fewer than eight people testified that when they asked Verizon to repair their service, it was not done.47 These residents were left to put up with degraded wired telephone service, and when that failed, offered the wireless substitute for both voice and data. b. Unavailable Service Illinois and New York consumers have already been told that the incumbent local exchange carrier will no longer provide service to various customer locations. For example, an Illinois customer complained that he was told that ordinary telephone service was unavailable at his home in a dense area on the north side of Chicago. He reported that “in order to get a landline, it would be required to also bundle with another service, e.g. cable tv, Landline regular phone service was not available by itself.” 48 Since a bundled package “did not fit my 46 See Thompson Reuters Street Events Edited Transcript of June 21, 2012 1:00 P.M. G.M.T interview of Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell Mc Adam at Guggenheim Securities Symposium. 47 Several witnesses testified that they were told by Verizon service personnel: “I can’t fix your line. I have been told I can’t fix your line.” See Temporary Use of Verizon’s Voice Link Service on Fire Island, Transcript of August 24, 2013 Public Hearing at Ocean Beach Community House, Ocean Beach, New York, NY PSC Case No. 13-C- 0197, Tariff filing by Verizon New York Inc. to discontinue its current wire line service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole service offering in the area, at 37. See also 42 (“four people are supposed to show up [for repair], never did,”), 45 (“they didn’t come”), 54, 72 (“several repairs for people that have never showed up.”), 78, 82, 91 (“We have been told that if the landlines fail we will not get them fixed.”). 48 Illinois OAG Complaint 2014 CONSC 00370650. 15 need/preference” he declined service. 49 However, he was later billed for service, and complained when the charges rose to $96.32, including $7.00 late payment charges.50 Another consumer in suburban DuPage County, Illinois reported receiving a bill for $162.00 from the ILEC for telephone service he never received.51 While these consumers were moved to contact the Attorney General after being billed for services they did not receive, they would have been landline telephone service customers had they not been told that service was not available. When assessing the assertion that consumers are leaving landline service “in droves,” 52 the Commission should investigate whether consumers are being told that stand-alone landline service will not be provided upon request, or must be bundled with Internet or video service. The situation in Fire Island, New York, where Verizon sought to discontinue landline telephone service after Hurricane Sandy, further highlights the problem of consumers being refused or discouraged from obtaining landline telephone service in areas where the incumbent, i.e., Verizon, has not deployed its IP service 53 and stopped repairing its TDM network. Consumers’ experience with the wireless substitute offered in place of TDM and IP telephony, is discussed below. c. Changed Prices, Terms, and Conditions For about 100 years traditional telephone service has been subject to state regulation over prices as well as terms and conditions to assure that service is provided on just and reasonable terms. With the change to IP enabled service, carriers have changed both prices and terms and conditions. Consumers in some instances reach out to state Attorney General offices when their 49 Id. 50 Id. 51 Illinois OAG Complaint 2014 CONSC 00371500. 52 AT&T Proposed Trials at 4. 53 Verizon stopped FIOS expansion in 2012. However, some commentators suggest that it should restart its build- out. See http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 ; http://www.speedmatters.org/blog/archive/verizon-ceo-hedges-on-fios-expansion/ (March 11, 2014); and Verizon Might Someday Look At Expanding FIOS Further, http://www.dslreports.com/blog?cat=92 (March 12, 2014). 16 service does not match their expectations, because of a lack of disclosure or notice, because the changed terms were not clearly understood, or because the consumer finds the changes unfair or unreasonable. Some of the concerns expressed by consumers are as follows: 1. Voluntary Change. When assessing the rate at which customers are transitioning to digital service, and whether those changes are voluntary, the Commission should be aware that the carrier’s marketing may lead consumers to believe they have no choice but to change their service. For example, an AT&T marketing letter dated May 3, 2013 informed the customer: “We are excited to tell you that within the next 45 days, we’ll be moving your Internet service to the AT&T U-verse network!” (bold in original.) 54 When the customer contacted AT&T to arrange for new equipment, he resisted the change, and was then told that the letter was only “marketing” and while he would not be automatically switched, his service would have been interrupted had he not called.55 Another consumer expressed concern that if she moved to U-verse, her price would remain the same for one year, but thereafter it would increase to the new U-verse data rate. She wanted to avoid the price increase and resisted the change.56 2. Increased Charges. The most common complaint from consumers is that telephone service charges are not what the consumer expected after a switch to IP-based service. Consumers have complained that when they call the carrier to see if they can reduce their telephone service charges, they are encouraged to take IP-based service, in AT&T’s case, U-verse Voice.57 Another customer stated: “every month they try to 54 Illinois OAG Complaint 2013 CONSC 00357797. 55 Id. 56 Illinois OAG Complaint 2013 CONSC 00368390. 57 E.g., Illinois OAG Complaint 2013 CONSC 00365916. 17 charge me more and more.”58 The carrier charged the consumer a $99.00 installation fee to switch her service to U-verse Voice, and the terms and conditions changed significantly, resulting in an unstable and higher than expected bill.59 Upon investigation, it became clear that instead of being charged on a per call basis for local calls, she was charged on a per minute basis for local calls, although this billing practice was not explained to the customer at the time that she was switched to U-verse. This is a major change from the way local calls are billed in Illinois, and resulted in the unstable and increasing charges she experienced. Changes to the terms and conditions of service are not always clearly communicated to consumers either online, in online “chat” conversations, or in direct conversations with customer service representatives. AT&T describes of AT&T U-verse Voice 200 as providing 200 minutes of use, as follows: Unlimited calling to other Uverse Voice customers, plus 200 minutes of anytime calling to anyone else in the U.S., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marianas. Additional minutes billed at 7¢ per minute.60 In other words, U-verse Voice is unlimited to some customers, but other calls, local or long distance, are treated like “toll calls” subject to minutes of use charges. This term of service treats calls to U-verse Voice customers more favorably than it treats calls to other numbers, raising the question of unreasonable or undue discrimination and preference.61 While calling plans are not new, the cost for the call is ordinarily linked to location or distance rather than which carrier serves the called party, a factor that is not generally known to most consumers. 58 Illinois OAG File No. 2014 CONSC 00370133. 59 Id. 60 See http://att.com/shop/home-phone.html?tgccParam=1 61 See 47 U.S.C. 202(a). 18 Treating all local calls as toll calls subject to minutes of use charges may be a significant change in the way consumers are charged for local calls. This change can be expected to either result in consumers limiting their use of the network to save money, or in increased bills. The AT&T trial wire centers both serve populations that can be expected to be sensitive to price changes. AT&T reports that 51% of the population in the King’s Point, Florida wire center are over 65 years, and 21% of the households in the Carbon Hill, Alabama wire center are below the poverty level.62 The effect of this change in pricing on senior citizens and those of modest incomes should be closely reviewed in the proposed trials. In addition, the Commission should consider (1) whether consumers in these wire centers and in other states and wire centers currently have untimed local calling, (2) the effect of a change to toll, minute of use charges on both usage and total cost to the consumer, and (3) whether there is a cost basis for the resulting increase in charges. In New York, Verizon advertises many different prices for FiOS voice only service. For example, the unbundled phone service, Digital Voice, is shown as $59.99 for “unlimited calling” in New York City.63 Elsewhere on its site, Verizon identifies a FiOS Digital Voice service for $14.99 plus $0.05 per minute for all calls.64 In Lansing, New York, regional home phone service is advertised at $37.04, and bundled with 62 AT&T Wire Center Trial Operating Plan at 7 (Feb. 27, 2014). 63 On Verizon’s web site, the price for telephone only service in New York City is $59.99 for one year. http://www.verizon.com/home/shop/shopping.htm (deselect TV and Internet for Telephone only price). The price for telephone and Internet is lower, ranging from $34.99 to $54.99, but requiring a two year contract. Id. (select Internet and Telephone only). However, Verizon notifies consumers that Internet service and speeds are not guaranteed as follows: “Speeds and service availability vary. High Speed Internet Enhanced service will be provisioned based on customer location and Verizon line qualification requirements. Most will qualify at 1.1–3 Mbps speed tier. The 3.1–7 Mbps and 7.1–15 Mbps service tiers ranges are available in select locations only. Availability subject to final confirmation by Verizon.” Id. 64 See http://deals.servicebundles.com/verizon-home-phone/new-york 19 Internet is shown at $39.99.65 However, these offerings are higher than the price for “plain old telephone service” or POTS, in Binghamton, New York which is listed at $15.80 per month with untimed local calls at $0.09 per call (not per minute). 66 Additionally, the FiOS device runs on house power, costing consumers for electricity and in the event of a power outage, runs on battery backup for a limited time only.67 By comparison, the wireline service is self-powered.68 Verizon does not disclose the typical electrical consumption of its FiOS device, a significant cost in parts of New York which have some of the highest electricity rates in the country, especially on Long Island and the New York City region. 3. Connection charges. Consumers who are encouraged to change from traditional landline service to U-verse IP-based service do not appear to be told that they will also be charged a $99.00 installation fee for voice service. While AT&T is willing to allow the consumer to pay this fee over three months upon complaint from the consumer, the additional charge for a change the Company initiated for the same functional service, 65 The Internet speed is shown as only up to 1 Mbps. http://deals.servicebundles.com/verizon-home-phone/new- york/lansing# 66 See http://www.verizon.com/FORYOURHOME/GOFLOW/OrderNew/BuildBundle.aspx 67 There was also an issue where a PSC audit found that half of FiOS installations failed to properly ground the device, exposing consumers to electrocution/fire risk. This was resolved by forcing the company to go back and check every installation and correct them to meet National Electrical Code standards. http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=08-V-0835 (see Orders posted February 18, 2011, January 29, 2009, November 3, 2008). 68 Verizon points out that factor in its description of its telephone service in Lansing, NY: Unmatched Peace of Mind and Convenience There are a lot of reasons to have home phone service from Verizon. You won't drop calls, your phone will almost always work, and when you're at home, you are always reachable. Here are just a few more reasons a home phone in Lansing is a good idea: •FCC recommends a land line in an emergency •Will work in a power outage •Multiple phone on one line •A clear connection, every time. http://deals.servicebundles.com/verizon-home-phone/new-york/lansing# 20 i.e. telephone service, raises the question of unjust and unreasonable charges as well as notice.69 4. Early termination charges. Consumers who have been encouraged or directed to change their DSL service for U-verse data have complained of being charged an early termination charge when they terminate U-verse service in less than a year. AT&T’s web site states that a one-year commitment is required for U-verse data service, although the size of the early termination fee is only included in the “see offer details” link for 13 various offers.70 Notice of this fee is often not clearly communicated to the customer, and raises equity concerns when the consumer is directed to change from DSL to U-verse. As one consumer stated in his complaint to the Illinois Attorney General: At the end of May [2013] ATT sent me a letter stating that I was REQUIRED [to] change to their U-verse Network. I did not ask for the change. The result was a disaster. I cancelled my service and moved to another provider. However, when I cancelled I was informed that I had a new CONTRACT when I changed to U-verse. I was never told about a contract, did not agree to one, was not requesting anything but rather was required to make a change. … ATT waived the cancellation costs when I ‘reacted’ so I do not have anything to recover but this practice cannot be permissible under the law.”71 The imposition of early termination fees for a new service that the customer has not requested raises significant equity concerns because not all customers have the time or ability to dispute the charges in the event they encounter problems with the new service. 69 Illinois OAG Complaint 2014 CONSC 00370133, 2013 CONSC 00365916 (customer refused to pay the $99 installation fee for Voice and the $100 installation fee for Internet access and ultimately lost all service despite calling to reduce her bill). 70 The “see offer details” link on AT&T’s website contains terms and conditions for service bundles and is several pages long. The early termination charge states: “Offers available for new residential AT&T Internet customers only. 12-month term required. After 12 months, standard rate applies unless cancelled by customer. Qualifying AT&T home phone service required. Promotional rates may no longer apply if customer changes their speed tier during term. Up to $180 early termination fee applies.” Link available at http://www.att.com/shop/internet.html#internetvoicebundles 71 The complainant discussed in this paragraph enclosed two pieces of correspondence from AT&T to the customer. One letter dated May 13, 2013 references the one-year term, but only discloses that a $180 early termination fee “may apply if U-verse services are terminated” in the third of three endnotes. The second letter dated May 20, 2013 does not mention an early termination fee. Illinois OAG Tracking No. 13-145961. 21 This practice can also raise competitive concerns because it results in substantial transaction costs to consumers in the event they seek service from an alternative provider or simply choose to go without unsatisfactory service. Customers who might not have IP service available and are offered the option to replace their TDM service with a wireless home phone face connection fees as well as activation fees. While a customer can avoid the $99.00 connection fee and the $36.00 activation fee by signing a two-year contract for AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone, if the service proves unsatisfactory because the strength of the signal is insufficient, or the voice quality is not acceptable to the customer, the customer will face a $150 early termination fee. Customers moving from AT&T’s TDM service into a Wireless Home Phone face the significant risk of a two year contract on an untried wireless service or significantly higher initial charges.72 5. Loss of legacy functions: Medical monitoring, security monitoring, building security/ “doorbell” function, fax machine usage, and other legacy functions may be impaired or lost by the transition to wireless or IP service. While a telephone company cannot be expected to know the needs of each of its individual customers, the failure to disclose changes in these services can cause dangerous situations. An Illinois consumer wrote to the Attorney General to point out that “if I had installed the system [U-verse Voice] and needed my emergency system it wouldn’t have worked – no one ever asked me that question because I never would have ordered it.” She did not go forward with the switch to U-verse because the Company had placed additional 72 See Offer Details link at: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/att/wireless-home-phone-silver.html 22 conditions on her purchase of the service due to “an assessment of your credit history.”73 Illinois regulations regarding satisfactory credit requirements is discussed below.74 Customers of wireless substitutes, such as AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone and Verizon’s Voice Link also lose many legacy functions. AT&T’s web site acknowledges that Wireless Home Phone “is not compatible with home security systems, fax machines, medical alert and monitoring services, credit card machines, IP/PBX Phone systems, or dial-up Internet service.”75 Verizon customers who subscribe to Verizon Home Phone Connect will find the same limitations.76 The experiences and concerns of Fire Island, New York residents and businesses who were limited to Verizon’s Voice Link service when Verizon declined to repair traditional telephone service in their area are discussed below. d. Loss of Telecommunications Regulatory Protections. As the example above demonstrates, a customer seeking IP based or wireless home phone service may be required to provide financial performance guarantees or other charges beyond those allowed under Illinois or other state regulations. Consistent with the goal of protecting consumers’ option to be connected to the telephone network,77 Illinois regulations limit the requirements that can be placed on new customers to posting deposits or prepayment. For example, a deposit is limited to two months service charge for residential customers, and can 73 Illinois OAG Complaint 2013 CONSC 00358957. 74 See page 23, below. A customer with current service that is not past due is entitled to service without a deposit under Illinois rules. 83 Ill. Adm. Code 735.110(e)(2)(A): “If the applicant has verifiable previous service with any telephone company for at least twelve months and the payment record on the account was satisfactory, the applicant would obtain service without a deposit.” 75 http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/att/wireless-home-phone-silver.html 76 http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/device/home-phone-connect?selectedContractTerm=2 77 The public interest in widespread connection to the communications network is reflected in Section 201 of the Telecommunications Act. “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate commerce or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; … All charges, practices, classifications, and regulation for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable…. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulation as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 47 U.S.C. 201. 23 only be required under specified circumstances.78 By contrast, it appears that AT&T has asked for deposits as high as $450 for U-verse service, although the credit requirements for Voice alone are unclear. 79 Other consumer protections include notice prior to disconnection and the postponement of disconnection for 30 days in the event of illness.80 Customers who only have wireless home phone options will lose the protections provided by traditional telephone regulation. e. Effect Of Loss Of Wireline Service And Mandatory Cellular Substitution. AT&T has stated that “some locations lack a positive business case for private sector investment”81 and it has indicated its intention not to provide wireline service over its IP network to 25% of its customer locations.82 In its Carbon Hill, Alabama trial, it intends to provide Wireless Home Phone service and discontinue the TDM network to a [confidential] portion of its Carbon Hill customers. AT&T suggests that “universal service support may be necessary to solve the broadband equation for everyone,”83 implying that it is not willing to offer IP-based service in areas where the expected revenue from an individual wire center does not meet the company’s expectations unless it receives subsidies from the Universal Service Fund. In addition to reviewing the sufficiency of the wireless telephone and Internet access that AT&T (and Verizon) promote(s) as a substitute for wireline service, the Commission should 78 83 Ill. Adm. Code 735.100-735.120. For example, Illinois regulations provide that a new customer can be asked for a deposit if the customer does not meet two of seven credit criteria, such as existing service, home ownership, employment for two or more years, or having a credit card or bank account. Id. at 735.110(e). 79 Credit requirements are not conspicuously presented on ATT.com. The Illinois Attorney General has received informal inquiries about the $450 deposit requirement for U-verse Video. The AT&T customer forum includes a report of similarly high deposit requirements for video at http://forums.att.com/t5/U-verse-General-Care-and- Support/Required-Deposit/td-p/3681371 (customer complained of a $449 deposit requirement on AT&T customer forum, 10-12-2013). See also http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/att-u-verse-charlotte-california- c276947.html (2009-2011 - customer informed of required $450 deposit and comments). 80 Id. at 735.130 & 735.140. 81 AT&T Proposed Trials at 17. 82 Id. at 6 (“Our wireline IP network will reach approximately 75 percent of the customer locations in our 22-state wireline footprint, with many experiencing faster speeds.” AT&T asserts that 99% of its customer locations will have access to 4G LTE wireless services.). 83 Id. at 17. 24 independently assess the costs associated with expanding IP service to a carrier’s entire existing footprint. AT&T and Verizon, as well as Comcast and other carriers, are multi-billion dollar companies that are providing service in the densest parts of the country as well as in the less dense areas. 84 Further, these companies tend to have uniform rates nationally, raising the question of whether the revenues from the areas that are less costly to serve are sufficient to expand service to the more costly per customer areas. The Commission cannot assess the assertion that it is not economical to serve a small area like Carbon Hill, Alabama without knowing both the cost to provide wired IP service to that area, and how that cost compares to the overall profitability of the firm. From a state and local point of view, profitability should be considered on the state level, rather than on the level of a wire center. Using the wire center as the measure of profitability ignores the economies of scale that are the essence of the network, and the benefits that result when high cost and lower cost areas are combined to provide universal access to the network at reasonable prices. In its trial proposal, AT&T asserts that wireless networks are sufficient to replace both wireline voice and Internet service. Nevertheless, the Company cautions that it is still developing certain enhancements or capabilities not yet available, such as compatibility with home security systems, fax machines, medical alerts, and credit card applications (which are essential to business customers). 85 As described above, Verizon’s “home phone” wireless product also has these limitations. In New York, Verizon offers to substitute wireless Voice Link for wireless facilities when it informs customers that repair of their wireline service will no longer be available. Even in areas far beyond Fire Island that were unaffected by Hurricane Sandy, Verizon has asked 84 AT&T Wire Center Trial Operating Plan at 5. 85 Id. at 20. 25 customers to substitute wireless Voice Link for wireline service without clearly disclosing all of the significant differences in service such as Voice Link’s inability to support DSL, alarm systems, medical alert devices, or fax machines.86 According to Communications Workers of America (and confirmed by complaints to the New York Attorney General), Verizon is rolling out Voice Link from New York City to the Catskills region, and all the way to Buffalo. New York consumers have attended multiple public hearings to express their disappointed expectations with Voice Link service.87 In the absence of IP investment by the incumbent carrier, consumers lost both reliable telephone service and high speed Internet service (i.e. faster than 4 mbps). 88 They were left with wireless service that in some cases was unreliable,89 lacked clear voice quality that made it impossible for a person with hearing loss to use the service,90 and was insufficient for expected Internet business functions such as credit card transactions or simply taking restaurant reservations.91 86 See NYSPSC Case 13-C-0197, Emergency Petition Of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman For An Order Preventing Verizon From Illegally Installing Voice Link Service In Violation Of Its Tariff And The Commission’s May 16, 2013 Order, filed June 26, 2013, http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/common/view doc.aspx? DocRefld={A3FOA269-8613-4437-AEB3-35ACCF6E5A47}. Verizon’s web site, in suggesting that consumers subscribe to wireline telephone service in Lansing, NY states: “You may not know it, but as many as 12% of cell phone calls are dropped. In Lansing there are currently 3,680 people. Taking a daily average, this means there are 3,533 dropped calls. Don't get disconnected on the calls that matter most. Verizon home phone delivers 99.9% network reliability. As a subscriber you also get: A clear connection.” http://deals.servicebundles.com/verizon-home-phone/new-york/lansing# 87 See NY PSC Case No. 13-C-0197, Tariff filing by Verizon New York Inc. to discontinue its current wire line service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole service offering in the area. Verizon later withdrew this request in a letter dated September 11, 2013http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=13-C-0197 88 See id., Public Comment tab (indicating 1,740 comments as of 12/6/2013) and Temporary Use of Verizon’s Voice Link Service on Fire Island, Transcript of August 24, 2013 Public Hearing at Ocean Beach Community House, Ocean Beach, New York, NY PSC Case No. 13-C-0197, Tariff filing by Verizon New York Inc. to discontinue its current wire line service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole service offering in the area. 89 Id. Many people testifying at the hearing described unreliable service, including interruptions by recorded message, dropped calls, inability to be heard, lack of connection when making calls, and lack of connection when called. 90 Id. at 68 (“I was able to hear quite well I would say on a land line and hold a long conversation. And with the Voice Link service that I now have my telephone is useless to me. … Communication is a treasure and if you’re losing your hearing you experience that more than ever.”). 91 Id. at 6-8. 26 Consumers on Fire Island, New York, where Verizon sought to replace wireline telephone and Internet access with its wireless Voice Link service for a period of time before agreeing to restore wireline service, provided written comments to the New York Public Service Commission and attended hearings describing how they were experiencing the IP transition.92 Consumers raised the fundamental question of whether it is legal or fair to allow an incumbent carrier to disinvest in a community where it has provided service, mostly on a monopoly basis, for years.93 One consumer stated: “We are not that many people. We’re here just mainly during the summer months, but around the country there are many, many other places that are far away that are inconvenient for Verizon. And if they can get away with not servicing their customers, they’re certainly going to get away with it.” The consumer concluded with asking that Verizon be required to continue to provide landline telephone service to his community on Fire Island in New York.94 In addition to consumer frustration with inadequate wireless telephone and Internet access service, the Commission must assess the capacity of the nation’s wireless system. In its Report to the President on Communications Resiliency (April 19, 2011) the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee pointed out that mobile data use is a tiny percentage of overall data use, with the vast majority of data going over the wired network. It concluded that wireless data use “will remain a small percentage of overall data traffic given the 92 See NY PSC Case No. 13-C-0197, Tariff filing by Verizon New York Inc. to discontinue its current wire line service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole service offering in the area. Verizon later withdrew this request by letter dated September 11, 2013. See also Public Comments tab indicating 1746 public comments. 93 Id. at 73, 95-96 (“I don’t understand why the Public Service Commission gave Verizon the authority not to fix our lines. A public utility is mandated to service customers. It’s not optional. Some years you make a lot, some years you don’t make so much, but you can’t say ‘Oh, we’re really not going to do it because we’re not making enough.’ It’s just not an option. Because you’re a monopoly, because you are a public utility, that’s not something you can say.”). 94 Id. at 97. 27 spectrum limitations inherent in wireless infrastructure.”95 In considering whether wireless service, both telephone and data, is a fair substitute for wired service, the Commission must assess not only the legacy functions of the TDM network, but the capacity of the wireless network in light of these spectrum limitations. f. Conclusion Consumers today are facing the real changes associated with the IP transition. AT&T is correct when it states that “[t]he IP transition is well underway.”96 While “the fourth network revolution” described by Chairman Wheeler97 has the potential to bring improved and innovative services, today too many consumers are describing poorer service, increased prices and fees, and misleading communications. The Commission should address the transition, both in terms of the trials proposed in this proceeding and in addressing the ongoing IP transition with an eye firmly on the statutory core values of universal and affordable service, public safety, accessibility to people with disabilities, and competition. While the transition from TDM based communications services to IP based communications services involves a shift in underlying technology, it is also involving substantial changes to consumers’ access to quality communications services, costs, and available functions. The experiences of consumers as reported to States and other regulatory agencies provide valuable insight into how consumers are experiencing the IP transition and how they can be expected to respond to the possibility that they will lose the option of landline telephone service and Internet access. These are issues that the Commission should expressly examine as part of the trials and its review of the IP transition. 95 Report to the President on Communications Resiliency, the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee at 4-5 (April 19, 2011)(emphasis added. 96 AT&T Proposed Trials at 2. 97 Id.; Tom Wheeler, Net Effects: The Past, Present and Future Impacts of Our Networks, ebook (Kindle) at location 103. 28 V. The Commission Should Require Extensive Reporting From The Major Providers Of Telephone Service So The Effects Of The IP Transition Can Be Identified And Addressed. The Commission has invited proposals for data collection in connection with the technology and service trials authorized in this proceeding. The trials are intended to include “a diverse set of experiments and data collection initiatives” to evaluate the effect of the transition from TDM circuit-switched voice services to an all- IP network using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure.98 The Commission and commenters have laid out what is at stake in this proceeding. The proposals to “transition” to IP do not just replace one technology with another – like going from rotary dial telephones to touch tone. Rather, AT&T’s proposed trial as well as Verizon’s proposal to discontinue TDM service and replace it with wireless home phone service in New York demonstrate that incumbent telephone companies’ obligation to provide universal, reliable, and affordable telephone service to all locations in its service territory is in the balance. In order to enable the Commission to identify the issues and their potential resolution, it is crucial that comprehensive and consistent information be produced by each trial and that the Commission reach out to major carriers to gather needed information. The two AT&T trials that have been proposed are too small to enable the Commission to assess the effect of the IP transition on our communications networks and needs. A broader data collection effort is needed. A list of proposed questions to facilitate gathering data to allow an accurate assessment of how the IP transition is affecting consumers and their communications needs is included as Attachment 1 to these Comments. 98 Initiating Order, ¶ 1. 29 In connection with the IP transition, the Commission should require the telephone and Internet access providers who provide service in areas with more than 1 million customer locations and originated as regulated cable or telephone carriers to provide the information identified on Attachment 1 to these Comments. In addition, the Commission should hold public hearings in the areas where the trials are being conducted, after providing consumers with specific information, approved by the Commission and the local regulatory commission, about the service changes that are expected, including changes in functions, service quality, reliability, price, and other terms and conditions. VI. Conclusion Wherefore, for the above reasons, the People of the State of Illinois, by Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and the People of the State of New York, by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, request that in evaluating the effects of, and responding to, the transition from TDM, circuit switched telecommunications services to IP based telecommunications services, 30 the Commission require the major incumbent carriers (or their successors) to provide the information identified herein and in Attachment 1 to these Comments, and further, that the Commission invite the State regulatory commissions and State Attorneys General to share their experiences with telecommunications consumers so that the Commission can be informed about the day-to-day effect of the IP transition on consumers. Respectfully submitted, The People of the State of Illinois By LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ___/s/______ Susan L. Satter Public Utilities Counsel Public Interest Division Illinois Attorney General’s Office 100 West Randolph Street, 11th fl. Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 814-1104 Facsimile: (312) 812-3212 E-mail: [email protected] The People of the State of New York By ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Jane M. Azia, Bureau Chief Keith H. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General New York State Attorney General’s Office Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection 120 Broadway, room 3B42 New York, New York, 10271 (212) 416-8320 Fax (212) 416-6003 31 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technology Transitions ) GN Docket No. 13-5 ) AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning ) GN Docket No. 12-353 the TDM-to-IP Transition ) ) Connect America Fund ) WC Docket No. 10-90 ) Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service ) CG Docket No. 10-51 Program ) ) Telecommunications Relay Services ) CG Docket No. 03-123 And Speech-to-Speech Services for ) Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities ) ) Numbering Policies for Modern Communications ) WC Docket No. 13-97 ) ) Attachment 1 To The People Of The State Of Illinois Comments On Trials and Data Collection Data should be collected by the Commission so that the following questions can be answered to assess the effect of the IP transition on consumers. This information should be gathered at public hearings, from the Commission’s Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau, and solicited from state public service commissions, from state Attorneys General, and from non-for-profit associations and organizations (e.g. AARP, Citizens Utility Boards) that have regular contact with consumers. The issues raised by the trials are not limited to the two small wire centers selected by AT&T for its technical trials. In order to assess the effects of the IP transition, the Commission needs to look beyond these two small trials, and evaluate the experiences of the states and consumers where the shift from traditional TDM service to IP based and wireless telephony and Internet access is occurring. The Commission should gather information sufficient to enable it to answer the following questions related to the IP transition: 1 1. Service Availability A. Universal Service. 1. What has been the effect of the IP Transition on universal service? 2. Are telephone and Internet access services becoming more or less available to Americans as a result of the IP transition and associated wireless substitution? 3. Are there differences in availability of services among rural and urban areas, among states, and within and among ILEC service areas? 4. Is there a cost basis for a reduction in service availability? 5. Is it reasonable to ask a carrier that provides telephone service to provide universal service without subsidy? 6. What factors should be considered in determining whether a universal subsidy is appropriate, such as whether the carrier charges a unified rate for all areas nationally or on a state basis, and the extent of the financial and investment burden of universal service? B. Mandatory Bundling. 1. At any time over the last five years, have residents seeking to order new residence telephone service been told that stand-alone landline telephone service will not be provided upon request, or must be bundled with Internet or video service? 2. At any time over the last five years, have customers with existing stand-alone landline services been advised that they will be required to accept a bundle in order to retain their basic telephone service? C. Connection Fees. 1. Are consumers being charged a connection fee to switch from TDM to IP based service (a) when the TDM to IP migration is at the request of the customer and (b) when the TDM to IP migration is involuntary or at the suggestion of the carrier in response to an inquiry about service quality, repair, or price? 2. How much is the fee and is there a cost basis for the connection fee? D. Early Termination Fees. 1. Are early termination fees assessed for voice or data service (a) when the TDM to IP migration is at the request of the customer and (b) when the TDM to IP migration is involuntary or is at the suggestion of the carrier in response to an inquiry about service quality, repair, or price? 2 2. If so, what is the amount, what notice is provided to the consumer, and is there a cost basis for the charge? 2. Service Quality A. Voice Quality 1. Are customers satisfied with TDM service? 2. Are customers satisfied with IP voice services? Does customer satisfaction with IP service vary based on distance from the wire center? 3. Have consumers found the wireless “home phone” option to be a true and acceptable substitute for wireline services where a wireline service is no longer available? B. Repair experience 1. How are consumer requests to repair local telephone service and Internet access service handled? 2. Are repair requests incorporated into the IP Transition, and if so, how are consumers being informed of the associated changes in service? 3. Does the carrier migrate a customer from TDM service to IP service in response to repair requests made with respect to voice telephone service? If so, what percentage of repair reports results in the replacement of TDM service with IP based service? 4. Have repair requests with respect to existing TDM services resulted in the termination of voice telephone service for that customer? If so, what percentage of repair reports result in the termination of telephone service? 3. Prices, Terms, and Conditions A. Prices 1. What are the prices for TDM based local telephone service and what are the prices for the IP based local telephone service to which the transitions are occurring? 2. Are TDM telephone services tariffed in the state? Which ones? 3. Are IP-based telephone services tariffed in the state? Which ones? 4. Are stand-alone voice services available? Is stand-alone local service available? 5. Are untimed local calls currently available in the trial areas or in other states? 3 6. How are local IP voice services priced? Are they priced per minute, per call, unlimited, or otherwise? What is range of calling? 7. What is the effect of a change to toll, minute of use charges for local usage on use of the network and total cost to the consumer for residence TDM services that are migrated to IP? 8. Is there a cost basis for minute-of-use charges? 9. Are preferences shown to some carriers’ customers? 10. How do these practices comport with the basic principles of common carriage? 4. Competition 1. In how many areas are there other wired options available, e.g., from municipal networks or cable networks, and are consumers using those options? 2. What will be the effect on competition if AT&T withdraws wireline telephone and Internet access from households in in the trial areas? 3. What will be the effect on competition and consumer choice if AT&T, Verizon or another incumbent carrier withdraws wireline telephone and Internet access from households in parts of their service area? 4. What consumer protections will be necessary if the IP transition results in only one, or at most two, wireline telephone and Internet access provider(s) in a given part of the country? 5. Consumer Protection 1. Do the carriers treat IP telecommunications services as telecommunications services or as information services? 2. Are IP-based services subject to different state regulatory treatment than TDM- based services? If so, what are the differences? 3. What is the effect on price, terms and conditions, and service quality if IP telecommunications services are treated as an information service? 4. Does a consumer’s shift to IP technology for telecommunications services such as telephone service and Internet access remove those services from state or federal regulatory or other consumer protection? 4 6. Internet access 1. Will high speed access to the Internet become more or less available when areas are transitioned to IP? 2. Will the charges for Internet access increase or decrease when areas are transitioned to IP, and how will prices be affected by bundling requirements? 3. In areas without IP wireline service, are the terms of wireless Internet access comparable to wireline Internet access in terms of price, usage caps, speed and other factors? 4. In areas without IP wireline service, are there spectrum limitations that will reduce the capabilities or capacity of wireless Internet access compared to wireline Internet access? 7. 911 1. Will 911 calls dialed from IP-based or wireless substitutes for legacy TDM landline services be directed to the same emergency center, or “public safety answering point” or PSAP that would customarily serve the caller’s location at the time the call is placed? 2. Will 911 calls dialed from IP-based or wireless substitutes for legacy TDM landline services be identified to the PSAP or other answering point with the precise address and, in the case of multi-dwelling unit (MDU) buildings, the unit number of the caller? 5 EXHIBIT J The Phone Network Transition: Lessons From Fire Island In October 2012 Superstorm Sandy struck the northeast United States, causing over $60 billion in damage and over 70 deaths. The storm devastated many public utilities, leaving people without electricity, water, and phone access. In Fire Island, NY, Verizon responded to the storm’s damage by replacing its landline copper phone and DSL network with a new fixed wireless service called Voice Link. The proposed permanent switch to Voice Link prompted unprecedented consumer outcry, particularly after the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) required Verizon to publicly file its Voice Link Terms of Service. As hundreds of customer complaints revealed, Voice Link does not provide its own power—as the copper network had— and is not compatible with alarm systems, medical monitoring services, fax machines, credit card machines, collect calling services, and some international calling cards. Unlike the copper network, Voice Link does not provide internet access, and Voice Link’s Terms of Service disclaimed liability if 911 calls failed to go through due to network congestion. After a barrage of consumer outrage and investigations by the NYPSC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Verizon announced that it would replace its Fire Island copper network with a fiber network instead, leaving Voice Link available for those customers who choose to use it. As more communities across the US find themselves facing the advent of new communications networks that may not have all of the capabilities and protections consumers are accustomed to on the traditional phone network, users, regulators, and carriers must remember the lessons we can learn from the events in Fire Island. The phone network transition holds great potential, but it is up to the public and their representatives in government to make sure the network continues to serve users first. New Communications Technologies Lesson 1: Customers can recognize when new services are inferior to what they had before. Even though Verizon originally lauded Voice Link as a next-generation technology that would provide better service for lower prices, customer outcry revealed that the real, everyday Americans using Voice Link were utterly dissatisfied with it. The comments consumers submitted to the NYPSC were clear: Fire Island residents viewed Voice Link as an inferior service that failed to meet their needs. As a basic matter, residents found Voice Link’s lower quality of service made it difficult to understand the person on the other end of the phone. Ellen Anderson wrote, “The most basic measure of any phone service is Clarity and on this measure, VoiceLink is a non-starter. Imagine all the garbled messages of your personal cell phone and multiply by a factor of 20! That is VoiceLink. People can accept a certain level of garble and dropped calls from their cell phone as a trade-off for cellular convenience. But this is intolerable on a home phone. Imagine not being able to hear or understand emergency calls!” Residents also complained they could not use services on Voice Link that had previously worked on the copper wireline network. Phyllis and Herbert Hildebrand wrote, “We need Life Alert systems, our home alarm system and communication with the outside world, especially in times of weather disasters such as the recent Hurricane Sandy. During that storm, which caused electrical power outages, our cell phone also failed. Our landline made it possible for us to contact our son and daughter, as well as emergency sources, should it become necessary.” Those who had been relying on the wireline network were also left without an adequate internet connection. Keith B. Stein noted that he had previously subscribed for unlimited DSL internet access service for $30 per month, while wireless data service cost $80 for 10 GB per month. He wrote: “Those 10 GIGs just get me and my family through a month of email, normal levels of work related internet use, and basic household internet usage…. One could easily spend hundreds of dollars or more per month, at Verizon's rates, in order to regain the amount of data we previously had pre-Sandy.” Fire Island residents’ response to the limitations of Voice Link make it clear that customers are paying attention when carriers transition their networks, and customers know when new “next generation” networks don’t actually serve all of their needs as well as the previous networks did. Americans relying on the phone service they’ve used for decades have a right to expect a communications network as good, or better, than what they had before the transition. Lesson 2: New, untested services can have serious problems. When Verizon first rolled out Voice Link to Fire Island, Verizon was eager to tell subscribers that Voice Link offers “the same 911 support” and “many of the same voice features and functions” as their old landline phones did. When Verizon did the same in New Jersey, it even sent around a mailer saying “Our technicians connect Voice Link into the telephone lines in your home, allowing you to use your home telephones to make and receive calls just like you did before” to impress upon customers how little difference they would notice between Voice Link and their landline phone service. However, as the service reached customers in the real world it became clear that Voice Link had many serious limitations that apparently had not been sufficiently examined before Verizon tried to replace landline phone service with Voice Link. Before the summer of 2013, the NYPSC required Verizon to submit a filing that belied Verizon’s frequent public pronouncements that its Voice Link service is basically the same as its former copper network service. In that filing, Verizon revealed that Voice Link service would be significantly limited compared to the wireline service Fire Island residents were used to. The following is a list of some of the limitations and problems revealed in the Voice Link Terms of Service: 2 • Verizon specifically stated that users should expect that 911 calls may be blocked by congestion on the network, or subjected to slower routing or processing speeds. Even if the 911 failure was caused by Verizon’s negligence, Verizon limited its own liability for any resulting damage. • The customer was responsible for maintaining power to the Voice Link device, in addition to making sure their actual phone was powered. The user was responsible for recharging the back-up batteries, or buying more commercial batteries if they had an updated Voice Link device. The Voice Link device battery would only last for 2.5 hours of talk time, and 1.5 days if left unused. • Voice Link would not work with medical alerts or other monitoring services. • Customers would not be able to use Voice Link for internet access, unlike the DSL offering that was available over the copper network. • Voice Link was not compatible with fax machines, DVR services, or credit card machines, and might not be compatible with home security services. • Voice Link customers would not be able to receive collect calls. • Customers must buy a separate international calling plan to make international calls, and Voice Link won’t allow customers to use calling cards to make international calls. • Voice Link did not allow customers to make 500, 700, 900, 950, 976, 0, 00, 01, 0+, calling card or dial-around calls. • Voice Link required 10-digit dialing, so users would need to dial an area code even when making a local call. One common theme among all of these new limits on Verizon's Fire Island voice service was that Voice Link’s failings all hit the most vulnerable the hardest. Users trying to reach 911, customers with no electricity, sick or elderly patients using medical alerts, subscribers with families living abroad, and the loved ones of prisoners making collect calls would all feel the consequences of Verizon’s experiments the most. Lesson 3: Supposedly “outdated” technologies can still have a significant number of people depending on them. It is also important not to dismiss the value of pre-existing technologies simply because the percentage of the population depending on them is below some arbitrary threshold of importance. A minority of the population uses wireline phone service to support their Life Alerts, but that percentage will fight for Life Alert support as if their lives depend on it—because they do. And while the percentage of the population solely using landline phone service for their communications has decreased, those users have stuck with the copper network precisely because it offers benefits to them they can’t find anywhere else. The public outcry against Voice Link in Fire Island showed that the consumers who still use copper-based services think that copper-based services still matter. There is a “long tail” of services from Life Alerts to calling cards to security systems that many people use. No one of these may have a lot of customers, but when you add them all up it translates into millions of people depending on copper who will be left out in the cold—and outraged about it—if the replacement service does not do the same thing, especially when they are forced to migrate rather than given an option. 3 The fact that a service is newer does not in itself mean that service is better in all respects than the preceding technology. Fire Island’s experience reminded us all that fixed wireless services can vary significantly in reliability, quality of service, and supported features if regulators do not take active steps to make consumers whole. This is not to say that new technologies can’t be upgraded to serve those same needs, but we cannot assume that we can simply force entire populations to convert to new technologies without understanding why and how those users depend on the existing infrastructure. Transitioning to New Services Lesson 4: Do not use natural disaster victims as guinea pigs for a new type of communications network. Post-Sandy Fire Island was the first time and place Verizon decided to use Voice Link to completely replace the copper network. No one had any information about whether Voice Link was robust enough to be the only option for basic phone service, or any real-world information for how customers would respond to Voice Link when they suddenly had no choice to use a wireline option instead. To make matters worse, Voice Link was imposed on Fire Island residents while the community was still recovering from a devastating natural disaster. When residents are rebuilding or repairing their homes and local businesses are deciding whether it is worth it to rebuild their presence in a community, reliable access to voice and internet services is a prerequisite for a strong recovery. Lesson 5: Forcing conversion to new services upsets consumers. When a carrier unilaterally decides to retire an existing service and replace it with a new one, customers are cut out of the decision-making process completely. No one likes feeling abandoned and having no other option but to take a new service, especially when that service is the platform for their business, personal, and emergency communications. The fact that some users have voluntarily switched to new services or added new services onto their existing ones does not mean that the customers who have chosen to remain on the existing service simply forgot to switch over. A forced migration makes all users accept the new service, regardless of whether that service actually meets their needs. As explained above, forcing people off of the copper network impacts their ability to reliably access services like health monitoring or 911, in addition to affecting their access to other features like credit card processing, security alarms, and fax machines. The best way to transition these customers onto a new network is to offer them compelling solutions that continue to serve the same needs as the previous network, not forcing customers to migrate to new services without knowing whether their needs will be met on the new network. 4 Lesson 6: Carriers need guidance on how to repair or replace their networks after natural disasters. Part of the difficulty for Verizon’s Voice Link deployment in Fire Island was the dearth of guidance for a carrier seeking to replace a damaged network with a new service instead of repairing the existing infrastructure after a natural disaster. It was—and still is—unclear what a carrier’s obligations are when it seeks to rebuild after a disaster. This is why Public Knowledge and 18 other public interest organizations have filed a letter1 with the FCC asking the FCC to start a proceeding to provide this guidance, so that all carriers—and more importantly, all Americans—know what to expect when rebuilding their communities. Even as Fire Island moves on, many questions remain for the next community to face this situation. When a disaster strikes, when must a carrier notify customers of its plans for the network? How should it contact them? When should it notify the relevant state and federal agencies? How should a carrier and the agencies determine whether a new service is an adequate replacement for the traditional network? When and how should actual consumers be involved in the decision-making process? If the new service can’t replicate the features of the old network, how should users be made whole? The Role of Regulators Lesson 7: Both federal and state agencies need to be able to protect consumers. It is important to acknowledge that without the NYPSC and the FCC providing regulatory oversight, nothing would have stopped Verizon from rolling out whatever service they thought “good enough” for a local community with no other provider, regardless of what the customers wanted or needed. The NYPSC proved critical in making Verizon disclose more details about Voice Link publicly and in establishing that Voice Link would not become a permanent solution unless it could demonstrate to the NYPSC that it would serve residents’ needs. The NYPSC also collected hundreds of public comments in which real customers described the ways that Voice Link failed to meet their needs and did not live up to their expectations compared to the copper network. Importantly, the NYPSC could not have played such an important role if New York had deregulated its treatment of phone services, as many states already have. If the NYPSC had been hamstrung by deregulatory legislation, it never could have opened an inquiry that provided a platform for outraged citizens, which eventually caught the attention of the press. Without this pressure and the threat of enforcement, Voice Link might still be the only option for Fire Island residents. For its part, the FCC held strong in making sure that Verizon filed an application to change its network under Section 214(a) of the Communications Act, and also opened a public docket for stakeholders to voice their 1 http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/ConsumerHurricaneGuidanceLetter.pdf 5 concerns. The FCC also rightly removed Verizon’s application from the default streamlined treatment to make sure it had time to thoroughly consider the issue before the application was approved. Without these important public forums to provide a focus for these complaints, and without the threat of regulatory backlash, no one would have any reason to believe that customers were unhappy, and Verizon could have simply forced them to take whatever it wanted to provide. Instead, people stood up for themselves and forced Verizon to respond. Lesson 8: Federal and state agencies are critical in making carriers explain their plans to the public. In addition to collecting public comment and threatening enforcement, both the NYPSC and FCC helped the public understand what was going on by requiring Verizon to submit information about its service. This was critically important at a time when Verizon would only give the press vague promises of how great Voice Link would be, and would generally assure customers that Voice Link would mostly be the same as copper- based phone service without actually explaining all of the differences. When the NYPSC required Verizon to submit its Voice Link Terms of Service and explicitly list the limitations of Voice Link, the public was able to understand the full implications of Voice Link’s problems for the first time. Similarly, the FCC’s procedures for confidential information allowed members of the public to sign protective orders to gain access to more detailed information about Voice Link and how it was selected and deployed. Without the NYPSC and FCC, the public may never have obtained access to this level of information, which would have hobbled their ability to make well-supported arguments against the forced conversion to Voice Link. Lesson 9: Customers can make a difference when they speak out to their governments. Perhaps the key event that led to Verizon’s decision to deploy fiber in addition to Voice Link was the tremendous outcry from Fire Island residents. Users numbering in the hundreds filed complaints before the NYPSC and FCC, which helped change the tide against the forced conversion to Voice Link. When consumer advocates joined the fight on the state or federal level, they could point to and pull from those complaints to show policymakers exactly how serious the limitations of Voice Link were. However, currently in many states people do not have recourse at the state level for this kind of problem, so their only hope would be at the federal level. Users living in deregulated states should actively engage their federal legislators for protections and ask their state legislators to reinstate the protections they voted away. Customers in states considering deregulation should be active against such actions. 6 EXHIBIT K STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 www.dps.ny.gov PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GARRY A. BROWN PETER McGOWAN Chairman General Counsel PATRICIA L. ACAMPORA GREGG C. SAYRE KATHLEEN H. BURGESS DIANE X. BURMAN Secretary AUDREY ZIBELMAN Commissioners Re: Case 13-C-0197 Temporary Use of Verizon’s Voice Link Service on Fire Island – August 24, 2013 ** Please note this is a Preliminary transcript, subject to later edits when reviewed by the Administrative Law Judges assigned to the cases. STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ______ Case 13-C-0197 - Tariff filing by Verizon New York Inc. to introduce language under which Verizon could discontinue its current wire line service offerings in a specified area and instead offer a wireless service as its sole service offering in the area. ______ SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 2013 1:00 p.m. Ocean Beach Community House 157-164 Bay Walk Ocean Beach, New York 11770 COMMISSIONERS: PATRICIA ACAMPORA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES: MICHELLE L. PHILLIPS INDEX W I T N E S S E S PETITIONER: RE RE V. WITNESS DIRECT CROSS DIRECT CROSS D. J RESPONDENT: RE RE V. WITNESS DIRECT CROSS DIRECT CROSS D. J E X H I B I T S PETITIONER: IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION I.D. IN EV. RESPONDENT: IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION I.D. IN EV. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 3 1 ALJ MICHELLE PHILLIPS: Perfect. So I have 2 exactly 1:00. So I'm going to take this out. I just 3 need to do the formal piece and then we'll get right 4 moving. We're going on the record. Good. 5 These hearings are being held to take public 6 comments in case 13-Z-0197 tariff filing by Verizon 7 New York to introduce language under which they could 8 discontinue current wire line service offering in 9 specified areas and instead offer a wireless service. 10 My name is Michelle Phillips I'm an 11 Administrative Law Judge at the New York State 12 Department of Public Service. With me is 13 Commissioner Pat Acampora. She is one of five 14 members of the New York State Public Service 15 Commission. We talked just briefly--I'm going to go 16 a little off script--about the difference between the 17 department and the commission. I think it's 18 important that you know that the commissioners are 19 the ones that actually make determinations. The 20 department staff go out, do investigations, and we 21 make recommendations to the commissioners but the 22 commissioners are the ultimate decision makers. 23 This is a public statement hearing that's 24 been scheduled by the Public Service Commission for 25 the purpose of receiving your evaluation of Verizon's Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 4 1 Voice Link service on Fire Island during the summer 2 months. These comments are going to be used when the 3 commission has to make its determination about how to 4 respond to Verizon's tariff filing. We're going to 5 be recording these. There will be a public record 6 that is created and it will be in the public record 7 on our document management system. This session was 8 noticed on August 7th, 2013, and a press release was 9 also released August 9th. I've already indicated 10 they'll be transcribed. They're going to be part of 11 the public records. I just want to remind you if you 12 don't want to speak publicly there are numerous other 13 ways that you can comment, writing, email, telephone. 14 Information about that has already been provided. 15 You can ask at the back table if you don't remember 16 how to do that. 17 For the purpose of making a statement here, 18 what we ask is that you fill out one of these cards 19 that you can get in the back. I already have a stack 20 of cards. I haven't even looked at how many, but I 21 have quite a few. So I just would like to ask if 22 people could kind of keep moving so that we can get 23 to everyone who has come here today. I'd really, 24 really appreciate that. 25 Again, because we are recording it, please Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 5 1 use the microphone. That's the only way we are going 2 to capture your statement accurately. If you could 3 also silence any electronic devises that would be 4 appreciated. Very quickly, before we start with the 5 speakers, I do want to allow Commissioner Acampora to 6 speak because she wants to speak to you as well. 7 COMMISSIONER PATRICIA ACAMPORA: Good 8 afternoon everyone. As the Judge had stated, there 9 are five commissioners that make of the commission 10 and as the only Long Islander I felt that it was very 11 important to come here today to listen to your 12 remarks. I will not be making further remarks or I 13 will not be answering questions because in my role as 14 a commissioner I serve in quasi-judicial capacity. 15 So that any comments I might say I do not want to 16 prejudice the record, but I can assure you that I 17 will be here taking copious notes and I will probably 18 have writer's cramp by the end of this one, and that 19 I will make sure that I relay your concerns to the 20 other commissioners so that they are aware that I was 21 here, I was present. And what I relay to them is 22 what I feel they need to know that they might not be 23 reading when they read a lot of this material. 24 So I look forward to listening to all of 25 you. And thank you all for coming out. We obviously Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 6 1 know that this is a matter that is truly concerning 2 and that's why we did extend the record to do this 3 during the summer time when most of the population 4 was here and we want to hear what you have to say. 5 Thank you. 6 [Applause] 7 ALJ PHILLIPS: As I indicated, we generally 8 go by cards but I think we've--I think everyone's 9 agreeable to Mr. James Betz going first. If you'd 10 like to proceed? 11 MR. JAMES BETZ: Just basically repeating 12 what I said before. I own Maguire's Bay Front 13 Restaurant right over here. I'm also president of 14 the Ocean Beach Restaurant Association, so I'm 15 hopefully speaking for all of the restaurant owners 16 as well but whom ever has the Voice Link service it's 17 not really a good service for our restaurants for a 18 few reasons which I'll state right here. 19 First off, I am not getting a busy signal on 20 my line. Okay? They told me I could not get a busy 21 signal on my line. And when people call up and they 22 don't get a busy signal what they get is--what they 23 got for the first half of the season was a Verizon 24 message created by them that said "I'm sorry that, 25 you know, this line is not accepting calls," which Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 7 1 says to everybody that everyone in Fire Island is out 2 of business because of the Superstorm Sandy. 3 Second, when they fixed that or kind of 4 fixed it they gave me a message that I could put on 5 and the message basically says that anybody can call 6 up. When they get a busy signal it's going to state 7 "I'm sorry. I'm on the--I'm on my phone right now 8 please try and call back because I'm on the phone and 9 you're not getting a busy signal." 10 Another problem with the Voice Link system 11 is trying to dial out to confirm reservations. I've 12 had more no shows this year than I've ever had in the 13 past and the reason is Voice Link does not dial out 14 to some numbers. And I don't know what numbers they 15 are and they couldn't give me an answer on that, 16 whether it's--I think it has to do with area code or 17 whatever but doesn't dial out. And again I get a 18 message from Verizon saying "I'm sorry. We can't 19 dial out to this number," and then I pick up my cell 20 phone and I dial out to the number. I get the 21 customer. Now, my cell phone is from Colorado, a 22 Verizon--you know, a Verizon Colorado number and I 23 get the people. So I can't dial it from my (631)583- 24 8800 but I can dial from my 970. Okay? So that's 25 another problem. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 8 1 The other problem is capacity on the 2 weekends. I'd say 50% of my phone calls when I pick 3 up the line when the phone is ringing I pick up the 4 line and there's nobody there. So I'm dropping calls 5 left and right. When I'm on the phone calling 6 people, I get dropped phone calls. Okay. And then 7 the sound quality on the whole system is horrible. 8 MULTIPLE VOICES: Horrible. 9 MR. BETZ: Horrible, and I probably speak 10 for everybody on that one. 11 MULTIPLE VOICES: Yes, yes. 12 MR. BETZ: And those are my comments for 13 Voice Link. 14 [Applause] 15 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. The next speaker- 16 -and actually I'll call the next two--Bob Jaffe, I 17 hope I pronounce that correctly, and John Moran. 18 MR. BOB JAFFE: I actually prepared a 19 statement and--but something that you folks have 20 indicated scares me a little bit. The gentlemen who 21 was sitting there before said that the--that the 22 PSC's jurisdiction over this is about voice only. 23 Where have you been for the last 20, 30 years? Phone 24 lines are no longer just about voice. They haven't 25 been forever. I'm not saying the evil word Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 9 1 "internet." I'm talking about security systems, 2 healthy monitoring, fax. This has been around 3 forever. Why this is coming up to you guys now, it 4 just doesn't make sense. 5 I'll go back to what I came to say. Verizon 6 Voice Link is absolutely awful. I won't go into much 7 of the reasons for or the--I won't go into what's 8 actually occurring, but it starts with the quality of 9 what you hear and what you're speaking. Verizon 10 Voice Link is not comparable to hard wire copper. 11 Let's stop pretending that it is. Again, health 12 monitoring, security systems, fax, the internet, and 13 more, all of these features are currently available 14 with hard wire and will not be available with Voice 15 Link. 16 Verizon's complained about the expense of 17 infrastructure repairs resulting from Sandy. The 18 nice lady over there in Fair Harbor mentions for 19 three years ago, maybe four years ago, Verizon went 20 by and changed all the cables. And then they take 21 these splice boxes, that's where the two sets--where 22 the two cables intersect with perhaps thousands of 23 pairs of cable. These are lying in the sand in the 24 water. And then Verizon comes to us here and speaks 25 to the fact that their infrastructure is Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 10 1 deteriorating and they use Sandy an excuse. That's 2 crazy. 3 [Applause] 4 MR. JAFFE: It seems--it seems it's a little 5 convenient for our friends at Verizon. My hearts 6 bleeds for them. They have to fix their wires. You 7 left them lying in the sand. 8 Back to the PSC, did you ever--and I mention 9 the FCC because there's a side order FCC involved in 10 all this but the PSC obviously has the primary. Did 11 the PSC and the FCC ever consider that a storm might 12 someday wreak havoc on the communications in some 13 municipality, whether it be Fire Island or another? 14 Did the PSC ever anticipate a corporate goliath 15 balking at making repairs after a calamitous event? 16 Please do not allow Verizon to remove our 17 central services. We need the PSC and the FCC to get 18 in step with 21st century communications. This is 19 your job. Availability of reliable phone and 20 internet serves at a fair cost is essential to 21 competing in the 21st century. We request formally, 22 on the record, that you permanently resend the 23 temporary permission for Verizon to replace our hard 24 wire copper with inferior wireless service. Thank 25 you. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 11 1 [Applause] 2 MR. JOHN MORAN: My name is John Moran. I'm 3 a 35-year resident of Ocean Beach, which means that 4 I've been paying Verizon for 35 years. Together with 5 my friend Carl Seligson from Seaview who's in the 6 front row, we both worked for a number of financial 7 institutions which covered the utility industry. 8 And, as I briefly alluded to the commissioner before 9 this meeting and I was glad to hear someone say that 10 in making this decision some thought will be given to 11 the history of what's going on here, I would contend 12 having been in industry observer that while I've 13 watched them put FiOS up and down my block in my 14 Westchester suburb, I've come here to Fire Island and 15 noticed for years that we've been getting short 16 shrift. Talk about the ability of them saying that 17 they're going to restore cell service to an 18 acceptable level and go back to the kind of cell 19 service we've been experiencing on a Sunday afternoon 20 for years, and ask can we believe that Verizon is 21 actually going to somehow miraculously now produce a 22 service which gives an acceptable level of service. 23 I mean to just make a simple utility 24 parallel, if LIPA was coming to you today and saying 25 they didn't need to provide electricity for peak Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 12 1 demand, you would tell them where to go. Verizon 2 doesn't seem to have the idea that they need to 3 provide an ability to have service that meets today's 4 needs, and that also can meet the capacity of demand 5 that comes here. We have DSL service and we may only 6 be part-time residents but that doesn't mean that 7 Verizon only bills us for six months of the summer. 8 My DSL service is X dollars for the six months it's 9 on. It's another $10 for the six months it's off. 10 So please, commission--I can also 11 specifically go--I'm not so sure whether we're 12 talking about the ancillary services at this point 13 but clearly in terms of Voice Link I happened to be 14 one of those people that asked to have my wire 15 service restored on day one of the summer season and 16 happened to get my wire service back. But my 17 experience in dealing with everyone that has Voice 18 Link is almost every time we got a Voice Link call we 19 got disconnected while it was going on, and reaching 20 a number of people on Voice Link has been virtually 21 impossible. 22 The thing that really aggravates me though 23 is that my Westchester suburb, which is a hilly area 24 with water underground, could have enormous amounts 25 of money spent by Verizon to put in FiOS, but a Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 13 1 decision was made not put FiOS into Fire Island years 2 ago at a point were DSL is becoming like the elephant 3 in the room. It's a service that has long since 4 passed its usefulness and now we're begging to a get 5 service that's third class. 6 [Applause] 7 MR. MORAN: In a nut shell, I hope the 8 commission will please, please think through this 9 totally unreasonable request and that somehow they'll 10 combine with the FCC in realizing that we're 11 absolutely getting screwed by Verizon. 12 [Applause] 13 ALJ PHILLIPS: Okay. I want to thank the 14 first two speakers. I'm going to call the next 15 three. Daryl Van Valkenburg, Judith Steinman, and Mo 16 Masson, if you could please come to the podium. So 17 again that's Daryl Van Valkenburg, Judith Steinman, 18 and Moe Mason. 19 MR. DARYL VAN VALKENBURG: Okay. Well, my 20 name is Daryl Van Valkenburg. I've been coming out 21 to Fire Island since 1975. Daryl Van Valkenburg, 22 I've been coming to Fire Island since 1975, had phone 23 service that whole time and our practice was never to 24 shut the phone service off in the winter. So we've 25 been paying for 12 months a year for all those years. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 14 1 We had phone service at the beginning of the 2 year for about I think four, six weeks. Then we lost 3 phone service. I called repair, they said they'd 4 come repair it but they never showed up. I called 5 again when they didn't show up and they said that 6 they would come again and repair it. They called to 7 confirm that they were going to repair it and never 8 showed up. 9 By accident, I found out that the problem 10 was that the line from the--that came down the walk 11 was severed. So I called them again and I told them 12 that this is not like a complicated wire buried in 13 the ground, this is just a five minute job with 14 somebody with a latter. So they confirmed the 15 appointment again and said they would show up but 16 they didn't show up. 17 Finally, I called again and every time--I 18 called three or four times after that and every time 19 I called I got shot right straight to the Voice Link 20 sale service and they tried to sell me Voice Link. 21 You know, I didn't want Voice Link I told them 22 there's a very simple job just repair this. They 23 said "We are not going to repair that." So 24 eventually my wife called to complain to the PSC and 25 the PSC took the information. We got a call from Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 15 1 Verizon saying, "Why did you complain?" 2 [Laughter] 3 MR. VAN VALKENBURG: And my wife said "Well, 4 because we've--we lost our phone service. It's my 5 husband--I see the wires torn apart, you know, coming 6 down the walk. It's a five minute job and you 7 wouldn't repair it." And she said "Well, we aren't 8 going to repair that," and she tried to sell us Voice 9 Link. 10 [Laughter] 11 MR. VAN VALKENBURG: So I heard someone say 12 earlier that I think that this storm has just been an 13 excuse, and that's the way I took it. They just want 14 to sell you Voice Link, which we don't want. 15 [Applause] 16 MR. VAN VALKENBURG: I told them I already 17 have a wireless service, so I really don't need to 18 duplicate that with another wireless service. So 19 that's my... 20 [Applause] 21 MS. JUDY STEINMAN: Definitely not made for 22 short people. My name is Judy Steinman. I've been 23 an Ocean Beach resident for about 30--for about 30 24 years. 25 ALJ PHILLIPS: [Interposing] You might need Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 16 1 to hold it in your hand because it... 2 MS. STEINMAN: Okay. I don't want to rehash 3 what everybody else has said. I have the same 4 horrible complaints about Voice Link. The voice 5 quality is terrible. You dial and you get a busy 6 signal, and you dial again and you get another busy 7 signal, and you dial again and maybe the third time 8 your call goes through. Or maybe you get a recording 9 that says, "Verizon wireless cannot complete this 10 call as dialed," all kinds of strange message do you 11 get with Voice Link. Calls are dropped frequently. 12 I've about stopped using Voice Link for outgoing 13 calls. I almost always use my cell phone because 14 people mostly can't understand what I'm saying. 15 Usually that's not a problem when I speak. 16 A couple of other observations. I wonder, 17 for example, whether Verizon, which claims it's 18 losing money on the storm and therefore can't afford 19 to do anything about our infrastructure, didn't 20 collect money from FEMA to repair its facilities. 21 And I wonder whether also they didn't collect money 22 on some insurance policy on their facilities. I 23 don't know what the answer to those questions is but 24 I wonder whether a prudent, large corporation doesn't 25 in some way ensure itself against a major catastrophe Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 17 1 such as we saw with Superstorm Sandy. 2 I also want to posit that I think we've been 3 the object or subject, if you will, of a major 4 experiment by Verizon. I don't think they had any 5 idea what the outcome was going to be. I think they 6 had three hypotheses which they tested. One was that 7 they could provide us with good phone service. The 8 second one was that they could provide us with 9 reliable replacement for what we had. And the third 10 one is was that they could provide us with an 11 affordable replacement for what we had. Well, I've 12 got to conclude that these three hypotheses had been 13 disproven. 14 [Applause] 15 MS. STEINMAN: The quality of the voice 16 service is terrible. The service we get on the 17 telephone is unreliable. It's inferior to what we 18 had before. We were promised that there's a battery 19 pack in Voice Link that will power it when the 20 electricity goes out. Well, I don't know. How many 21 of you experienced the power outage a few weeks ago? 22 We here in Ocean Beach had no power about 10:30, 23 11:00 at night. There was propane emergency in this 24 village. The fire department turned off all the 25 electricity in Ocean Beach. And guess what else went Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 18 1 off with the electricity? 2 [Applause] 3 MS. STEINMAN: I, as many of my neighbors, 4 am a senior citizen. I live alone. I depend on 5 being able to contact emergency services, medical 6 services, fire, police. If I can't get them because 7 Voice Link doesn't work in a power outage, as we know 8 happened on Fire Island, what good is it to me? 9 And also we have found that the internet 10 alternatives provided to our former DSL services are 11 much more expensive than anything that we paid for 12 with DSL. We formally had unmetered good, reliable 13 internet service. We no longer have that. People 14 have patched together service using various 15 suppliers' hot spots, and that service sometimes 16 works well and sometimes it doesn't work well. It's 17 much more expensive. If you want to watch a movie or 18 download lots of data from somebody's site, it's very 19 expensive. So I urge the PSC to absolutely deny 20 Verizon their horrible request to replace our lined 21 telephone service with Voice Link. It is an 22 unmitigated catastrophe. 23 [Applause] 24 MS. MARTHA MASON: My name is Martha Mason 25 and I live in Seaview. And I don't want to repeat Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 19 1 everything that everyone else has said, but I do want 2 to repeat something that I said Tuesday night. 3 I think that it's important in evaluating 4 Verizon's request to consider the "where" of the 5 request. Fire Island is a very special place, 6 special to most of us in our hearts but mostly 7 special in terms of its needs. We're cut off from 8 the mainland. We have a very small--I'm one of the 9 people who lives here year-round. We have a very 10 small year round community that depends on reliable, 11 intelligent phone service in order to stay. And, if 12 we didn't stay, then when a house caught fire or when 13 a flood happened there would be no emergency services 14 people here to deal with it. 15 [Applause] 16 MS. MASON: So we are a valuable part of 17 Fire Island, a necessity, and it is--and Verizon is 18 making it more and more difficult for us to stay. 19 The other thing I want to say is that I was shocked 20 in this meeting to hear that Verizon is repairing 21 copper wire were it works. My copper wire still 22 works but I've been told not even to bother calling 23 if it goes out. So I live in total fear. I live 24 with my fingers crossed that it shouldn't go out. 25 And my biggest concern about going over to Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 20 1 Voice Link, aside what I hear about how the quality 2 is not good, my biggest concern is those power 3 outages. Again, taking Fire Island into 4 consideration, we have more power outages more often 5 than the mainland of Long Island or I would venture 6 to say basically anywhere else in the state of New 7 York. So again, even if the batteries worked which 8 on first--the first time they were called upon to 9 work they didn't, they work for 72 hours, I've been 10 out here for winters were I've had no electricity for 11 a week or longer but my phone works because its 12 copper wired. 13 So I urge the Public Service Commission to 14 take into account as they consider this request from 15 Verizon, take into account the place where Verizon is 16 requesting to put in what is clearly an inferior 17 service. Voice Link may someday be a great service 18 but trust me that's not today. 19 [Applause] 20 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. I'm going to call 21 the next three speakers, Larry Litoff, Irving 22 Guberman, and Deborah Bach. 23 MR. LARRY LITOFF: Hi, my name is Larry 24 Litoff. I'm a resident of Ocean Beach. I chose-- 25 well, although I was tried to be sold Voice Link, I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 21 1 chose not to get it. I just wanted to reiterate what 2 one other gentleman said. Not only was I told when I 3 returned to Fire Island that my phone would be 4 reconnected and that someone would be there to do it, 5 and when I called and had not dial tone I was told 6 that someone would be there again and nobody showed 7 up. 8 Finally, when I spoke to Verizon and asked 9 them to just send a tech out to check my line--my, 10 all of my neighbors on my block had dial tone--there 11 was no problem with my line. I was told by Verizon 12 we're not going to send anybody, but then I got an 13 email that my dial tone was fixed. I got all 14 excited. I came out to Fire Island for Memorial Day 15 weekend and I found out that that wasn't that case. 16 Right? 17 I called the Public Service Commission and I 18 was given a case number and I got a call from Verizon 19 in Albany telling me they would check on it and get 20 back to me. That was the last I heard from Verizon, 21 the response was unbelievable bad. 22 And for many years I loved Verizon. I love 23 my wireless service. I love my FiOS service. I was 24 truly surprised at their response. And I understand 25 that they are connecting copper wire now, we'll see. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 22 1 The issue of the cost didn't seem to be a 2 problem for Verizon to replace all of the copper wire 3 with fiber in downtown Manhattan. I'm sure that cost 4 a lot of money but they didn't balk about that. 5 Right? There balking about it because we have 2,700 6 lines. It was my understanding the Public Service 7 Commission and the FCC requires Verizon, who is a 8 monopoly in Fire Island, to provide service no matter 9 what it cost. And that they're asking at this point 10 to disconnect the service because it costs too much. 11 Seems to be they've made plenty of money 12 these last couple of years not only residents of Fire 13 Island but I'm sure we're being subsidized by the 14 rest of their network. And I would like to continue 15 to be subsidized even if it cost them too much. And 16 I would like the Public Service Commission to tell 17 them that because they are a monopoly on Fire Island 18 and we can't get it from anywhere else that they have 19 to do it. 20 [Applause] 21 MR. IRVING GUBERMAN: My name is Irving 22 Guberman. I live in the Fire Island summer club. 23 I'm not going to rehash all the inadequacies of Voice 24 Link which other speakers have so eloquently 25 mentioned, but I want to give you my personal Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 23 1 experience. 2 On August 15th, just about a week ago, two 3 physicians told me I should get immediate medical 4 attention and get to a hospital without delay. My 5 wife tried to get through on our Voice Link system 6 for 15 minutes, dropped calls, static, you know, name 7 it. She got through on her cell phone and I was 8 evacuated from the island. Fortunately we have a 9 terrific emergency response team. 10 [Applause] 11 MR. GUBERMAN: They did their job. Verizon 12 did not do their job. That's my personal experience, 13 and I just hope none of you have to go through 911 14 and have only Voice Link to depend upon. 15 [Applause] 16 MS. DEBORAH BACH: My name is Deborah Bach. 17 I live in Seaview. I've been a resident of Seaview 18 as a renter and home owner since the '60's. Before 19 that I was in Oakleyville where we had no phone 20 service until the Sea Shore put in phone polls or 21 phone lines, but that's neither here nor there. 22 What I would like to do is summarize what I 23 said earlier prior to the public hearing, which is 24 that we have been barraged by misinformation from 25 Verizon. And that barrage has lead people to make Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 24 1 decisions about their phones service and to abandon 2 it, not because it wasn't working necessarily but 3 because they thought--we've been told it's not going 4 to work. It may be tomorrow that it fails, it might 5 be next week, but you can't depend on it anymore so 6 you might as well throw it out. A number of people 7 did that. 8 I got--when I came out and lifted my phone 9 receiver I found a dial tone. I wasn't sure what 10 that meant but I was guardedly optimistic. And 11 subsequently talking to people in Ocean Beach who'd 12 had the Voice Link experience for a while I realized 13 that that was a hopeless technology as far as I was 14 concerned based on the experience people were having. 15 And so I want you to know that it is viewed as 16 hopeless because if there is any doubt in your mind 17 as to what you've heard so far it is a hopeless 18 technology right now. It might improve but it's not 19 there yet. 20 The misinformation as continued up to today 21 and I think that the concern I have, having dealt 22 with regulatory agencies on the city, state, and 23 federal level during my professional life, I must say 24 to you as regulators it is your job not to cooperate 25 with Verizon in investigating what's going on. It's Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 25 1 your job as regulators to enforce your tariff with 2 Verizon. And by enforcement I mean not saying, "Send 3 us a report and let us know how you're doing." What 4 I mean is that you have to go out into the field. 5 You've heard enough to know that this isn't working. 6 You have to send people into the field, technically 7 expert, not Verizon employees, not former Verizon 8 employees, but people from your staff. And if you 9 need to hire independent engineers we might have a 10 few people in the audience who could raise their 11 arms, but I think the important thing is that you 12 have independent engineering specialists out here on 13 Fire Island looking at the condition that we now know 14 exists on the island, not across the bay; and see 15 whether in fact the condition that we've been told 16 exists does indeed exist; and whether the repairs 17 that are required are actually the repairs that would 18 be required to get the copper wire back operating; 19 and whether in fact the lady who said all you needed 20 was a ladder--or was it a gentleman? I don't 21 remember. 22 Whomever it was I hope that you--if they 23 came and they didn't have their ladder you'd offer 24 one. The people need to have the trust restored in 25 the monopoly that Verizon has here. There's no trust Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 26 1 in Verizon at this time because we have been barraged 2 by misinformation. 3 As a final note, I'd like to tell you about 4 an experience I had regarding my land line. I keep 5 my land line on local all year around and I keep on 6 that account repair--the repair cost to keep that 7 land line operating. And many people I think do the 8 same, so that when you come out if something has to 9 be repaired you've already paid for the repair. 10 You're not going to pay $60, $90 dollars extra to get 11 it repaired if indeed they were willing to come, 12 which I hear they are not this summer. 13 So I think that the real question in my mind 14 is what is really going on here. We know that the 15 disrespect of the system on the island began far 16 earlier than the Sandy storm. The lady across the 17 room as already verified that equipment was placed in 18 a place it should not be and that--and that that was 19 made known. I don't know what the Public Service 20 Commission sees as its responsibility to this 21 community, but I believe as of today you have a big 22 job to do and we're depending on you to do that job. 23 [Applause] 24 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. The next--I'd 25 like to call the next three speakers. Joel Stark, Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 27 1 Jane Levin, and Stephan Glacilla. Joel Stark, Jane-- 2 I know. I'm just repeating it in case anyone didn't 3 hear me. And I hope I don't sound like I'm rushing 4 you. I kind of am but it's only because I want to 5 get to everyone. 6 MR. JOEL STARK: Talk fast, right? 7 ALJ PHILLIPS: I want everyone to speak. 8 MR. STARK: Talk fast. 9 ALJ PHILLIPS: No, no, no. 10 MR. STARK: Talk fast. 11 [Laughter] 12 MR. STARK: Listen, this was farce the first 13 hour here today. You know, we had Verizon answering 14 the things that happened last Tuesday and that's not 15 the purpose of this hearing I assume. It's to 16 provide PSC with information, not for Verizon to get 17 up here and explain to us and tell us all of the good 18 things they are presumably doing. That's not the 19 point. 20 Okay. Look, we all need to write to the 21 PSC, call the PSC, because they are the people making 22 the decision. Who are the PSC? Commissioner, thanks 23 for being here. Judge, thanks for being here. I 24 don't know how this whole thing started but if I 25 fantasize I'd say, "Ah, Verizon. I work for Verizon. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 28 1 I'm for Verizon. Needless to say, I'm in the 2 interest of my profit making Verizon and what I'm 3 going to do is think of how we can use wireless so we 4 don't have all this maintenance stuff to do. Now 5 what shall I do? Ah, Fire Island, what a great 6 community. They're only there in the summer." 7 I happen to be here seven months of the year 8 and have been here for more than 30 years and the 9 fact is that someone in Verizon said lets test this 10 thing out. Apparently they decided this is a perfect 11 place especially after Sandy because the maintenance 12 costs here are enormous. Yes, Fire Island does not 13 make money for Verizon, clearly, but we spend a lot. 14 It's costing me twice as much now as it did last year 15 and the year before, but that's irrelevant to the 16 major issue. 17 So please, Public Service Commission, you 18 are public service in our interest and realize that 19 Verizon is a corporation designed to make profit. We 20 have learned that they set up this wireless unit 21 which is not regulated in the same way as Verizon 22 itself is regulated and they can do whatever the hell 23 they want. Look what's happening across this country 24 with unions. This is the time that I hope the 25 public, public, Public Service Commission realizes Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 29 1 their tremendous responsibility as to the issue. 2 Voice Link is terrible. We've heard enough 3 testament it is abominable. I can't tell you the 4 number of calls that I've gotten that I've never got 5 and how difficult it is. 6 [Laughter] 7 MR. STARK: You know, people, my cousin in 8 Seaview three times tried to call me, no answer, 9 Seaview. Voice Link, oh, sure, Verizon going to 10 build bigger towers and they'll fix some of this. 11 They'll come to your house and they'll tell you, 12 "Yeah, we'll take care of that." I've got three 13 calls in the past week from Verizon because I signed 14 up last week and I heard--oh, this lady was very kind 15 listening to all my complaints. Thank you very much 16 but again I'm sure some of you had the same 17 experiences. I'm over talking. Thank you, good 18 luck. 19 [Applause] 20 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. Oh, sorry. 21 MS. JANE LEVIN: My name is Jane Levin. 22 I've been coming to Ocean Beach for over 60 years. 23 When I first came out my mother needed to make a 24 phone call. She went down to the Western Union 25 Office where there were pay phones and when we first Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 30 1 got a phone it was a party line. So we've been 2 paying Verizon for a long time. The beginning of 3 this summer, when I called Verizon to turn the phone 4 on, I was sure that if I had a phone and--they 5 couldn't tell me whether it was working until I took 6 it off suspension. If I had a phone and then it 7 stopped working there was nothing they would do about 8 it. Well, I go out. I was lucky, I had a dial tone. 9 It worked and it worked for July. But this month, I 10 never know from one day to the next whether it's 11 going to work or not. 12 Some days I--it's dead. Some days I can get 13 a dial tone and I can dial out, but I can't receive 14 calls. And some days it's working. Now last weekend 15 it worked. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday it was 16 working. It was working when I left on Monday. Well 17 someone from--Patrick from Verizon called to try to 18 sell me Voice Link. And I said I wouldn't take it. 19 And I told him what I thought about Verizon. Tuesday 20 the phone wasn't working. 21 [Laughter] 22 MS. LEVIN: And it's--came out here last 23 night, well, it's dead. Maybe it will pick up again, 24 maybe it won't. But anyway, I'm a senior citizen. I 25 worry about needing the medical alert eventually. I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 31 1 had one for my mother when she was alive. I've lost 2 my DSL of course and the alternative is much more 3 expensive. 4 The people who I have talked to who have 5 Voice Link, I found the reception terrible. I have a 6 Verizon cell phone, why do I need to pay Verizon for 7 a second cell phone? There doesn't seem to be any 8 point to it. Thank you. 9 [Applause] 10 MR. STEPHEN GLACILLA: Hi. A lot of you 11 guys know who I am. My name is Steve Glacilla. I 12 live in Ocean Bay Park. I've been a year round 13 resident here for over 25 years. I've been here 14 since 1973. And I'm laughing because I used to work 15 for Western Union. Anyway, I have over 40 years in 16 the telecommunications business and the reason I'm 17 here today is because I represent a couple of 18 organizations. I'm a fire district commissioner in 19 Ocean Bay Park. I represent the Ocean Bay Park Fire 20 Department. I'm also on the board of the Ocean Bay 21 Park Association. 22 I also belong to an organization out here 23 which most of you don't know about. It's called the 24 Fire Island Law Enforcement and Safety Council, which 25 is a group of state police, regular police, Ocean Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 32 1 Beach Police, all the EMS services and fire chiefs on 2 Fire Island. Anyway, after that, just to give you a 3 heads up, I think I mentioned at the last meeting 4 with Senator Boyle that the fire departments were all 5 off at Voice Link. 6 I think I was--I was told that a couple of 7 them were given it without notice, but most of us 8 turned it down; mainly because it wasn't a reliable 9 service as far as we were concerned for life safety 10 issues because if you can't get in touch with the 11 fire department, who are you going to call? We 12 handle EMS, we handle all of the helicopter landings. 13 It's an important service to the people on the 14 barrier beach, especially year round. And again, as 15 you look around here, the people that are speaking 16 are all older people. I mean we don't have any kids 17 in here right now who rely solely on cell phones. 18 These are the people that need phone service 19 that you can do cardiac monitoring with. We just had 20 somebody flown off because they couldn't use a 21 regular phone. They had Voice Link and they couldn't 22 monitor the defibrillator they had built in. And I 23 think the woman is going to speak about that. I 24 can't mention who it is. Fax machines don't work. 25 The fire departments, they're going to give us copper Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 33 1 service, the schools and your local communities like 2 Ocean Beach's offices. If we're so important and 3 it's so vital to have copper lines, I feel everybody 4 should have copper lines. 5 [Applause] 6 MR. GLACILLA: Voice Link in the future may 7 be something that will be worthwhile, in the future. 8 It was tested in Florida. When we looked on the 9 internet we couldn't even find any tariffs or 10 anything about it. Their technicians were just sent 11 to try and see if people in Florida would get it. 12 Right now we're a test case. I know the Public 13 Service Commission and--well, the Inspector General 14 stopped them from putting it in upstate New York. 15 They're trying it in New Jersey. This is a test case 16 and once it goes through, I hate to say it, you know, 17 we're going to have problems. Anyway, thank you. 18 [Applause] 19 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. I'm going to call 20 the next three. Louis Barash, Julie and Deborah 21 Lokin, and Brett Roberts. Just so you know, after 22 them it will be Roberta Harris and Judith Sandron 23 [phonetic], but for now Louis Barash. 24 MR. LOUIS BARASH: Thank you. My name is 25 Louis Barash. I live in Seaview. I first want to Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 34 1 say we very much appreciate the Commission coming 2 here today on a beautiful summer's day taking the 3 time to hear us. We almost didn't have a summer 4 because of Sandy. If you have the time after the 5 hearing you can take a walk to the beach and still 6 see some of the devastation there. But through some 7 spectacular efforts by our elected officials, by 8 first responders and the whole community, we have had 9 a summer. Everybody pitched in. Everybody that is 10 but Verizon. 11 [Applause] 12 MR. BARASH: In one of the most cynical 13 corporate maneuvers I've seen in a long career of 14 representing corporations, Verizon promptly after 15 Superstorm Sandy went to work repairing the Far 16 Rockaway system, repairing the southern Manhattan 17 system and did nothing here. It waited until spring 18 and made a so-called emergency application for relief 19 here, knowing full well all along it was not going to 20 serve the Fire Island community. Then it makes an 21 application which has zero basis in support and fact. 22 Its application claimed three things; one 23 that damage due to Superstorm Sandy has changed the 24 reality. Two, that repairing that damage would be 25 unreasonable. And three, that Voice Link will serve Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 35 1 as a reasonable replacement for those--for Wyatt 2 Service [phonetic]. None of those things is true and 3 you've heard it here today. First, as you've heard, 4 there were substantial complaints about copper wire 5 service maintenance on Fire Island before the storm. 6 The Commission needs to examine whether 7 Verizon's representations about the storm causing 8 damage are true, if in fact part or all of that 9 damage is a result of Verizon's failure to meet its 10 obligation prior to the storm, then Verizon's 11 application must fail. Secondly, the total amount of 12 cost that Verizon, and these are Verizon's figures 13 allegedly, that it will take to repair the system 14 here, is $4.15 million dollars. I do not believe, by 15 the way, that scrutiny--that those numbers will 16 withstand any degree of scrutiny. They are probably 17 much smaller than that. 18 But four million dollars is a trifle to 19 Verizon as an entity and in comparison to the cost of 20 repairing either the Rockaways or the New York 21 system. Finally the service that they are providing 22 is not a replacement for its service. You've heard 23 it here today and indeed you've heard it from 24 Verizon's own mouth. They made very clear that 25 Verizon is not a product designed to serve customers. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 36 1 It is a product designed solely to meet its 2 regulatory obligations. None of that is in the 3 public interest. 4 Moreover, as you've heard from many people 5 today and from complaints that have been filed 6 online, Verizon has been continuing up until a recent 7 hearing here in the City or a recent public forum in 8 this town, to defy with impunity the Commission's 9 order that it maintain where possible copper wire. 10 That bad faith is clearly designed to increase the 11 number of Voice Link installations and reduce the 12 Commission's flexibility in granting appropriate 13 relief when the time comes later this year. That 14 defiance is bad faith and in and of itself should be 15 sufficient for this Commission to reject Verizon's 16 application. 17 There is no support whatsoever for their 18 Fire Island application. Their broader application 19 should be rejected out of hand as not subject to the 20 emergency that it was claimed for. That should be 21 subject to a separate hearing that both the PSC and 22 the Federal Communications Commission is currently 23 hearing. With respect to Fire Island and Verizon 24 alone; Verizon cannot even meet the standards that it 25 is set up in its own tariff. It should be summarily Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 37 1 rejected and there really shouldn't be any reason for 2 any further debate by the Public Service Commission. 3 We appreciate you hearing us. Thank you very much. 4 [Applause] 5 ALJ PHILLIPS: Sorry. If you could just 6 hand it to the next speaker? 7 MS. DEBORAH LOKIN: Thank you. My name is 8 Deborah Lokin and I live in Fair Harbor. And I 9 started calling you guys in March about the issue and 10 I was told that all Verizon needs to provide is a 11 dial tone. So I think mostly everybody has a dial 12 tone. Oh, some people don't even have a dial tone. 13 Okay, I amend that. The point is that it's all well 14 and good for most of us to have a dial tone, but we 15 don't have service. We have dial tone, most of us, 16 but we don't have service. The voice quality, 17 everything that everybody has said is in fact true. 18 When I first came out here in March, I did 19 speak with actual Verizon workers who said they would 20 get over to my house. They never did. And that 21 evolved into, "I can't fix your line. I have been 22 told I can't fix your line." They could have fixed 23 the line, but they were told not to. That seems 24 wrong. 25 [Applause] Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 38 1 MS. LOKIN: The thing about having the 2 service is that the service just needs to work. I'm 3 not sure if everybody would be complaining as much as 4 they are if the alternative service worked. It 5 doesn't. And just one other thing that a fellow 6 before me or a couple of people before me mentioned; 7 if it is possible to hard-wire the fire departments 8 and the schools and so on, it's possible to hard-wire 9 everyone. That's all I have to say. Thank you. 10 [Applause] 11 MR. BRETT ROBERTS: Commissioner Acampora, 12 Judge Phillips, thank you very much for being here 13 today and listening to the voices of the people at 14 Fire Island. My name is Brett Roberts. I am the 15 Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners in the 16 Fair Harbor fire district. We cover approximately 17 600 homes in Fair Harbor, Lonelyville and Dunewood 18 for fire and EMS service. A lot of people today have 19 talked about the issues of how much it cost to do 20 that--to repair the service, how much it cost to--for 21 internet service, how much it costs for a lot of 22 different things. 23 And, certainly, the primary reason that 24 Verizon wants to eliminate the copper line service is 25 because it costs them more money. But I would like Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 39 1 to talk about something which seems to be a little 2 more important than money and that's the life safety 3 and the safety and the health of the people that we 4 serve in Fire Island. It's our responsibility to get 5 to people who have a fire or an EMS emergency as 6 quickly as I--as we can. 7 And since Fair Harbor has been doing a fire 8 service since 1931 and EMS service for the past ten 9 years, our response time is really terrific as far as 10 EMS service. Before ten years ago we used to have 11 salt air covering our three communities and the 12 response time was as good as they can be but it 13 wasn't as good as it is now. We can respond anywhere 14 to someone's house, anywhere in our district between 15 two minutes and the longest time, possibly ten 16 minutes, maybe to--if it's a fire call. And so it's 17 probably among the best time--response time certainly 18 in Suffolk County and probably in the state also. 19 And so--and as anyone who is in the medical 20 field or the EMS service knows, that the most 21 important time to respond to someone in an EMS 22 emergency, in a cardiac emergency is the first five 23 minutes. And if you get to somebody in the first 24 five minutes, you at least have a chance of bringing 25 them back. Because as anyone knows who has taken a Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 40 1 CPR course, that is the golden time. And every 2 minute after that, you are possibly--the possibility 3 to brining someone back because as the people tell 4 us, as the instructors in CPR tell us, that you're 5 really bringing someone back from death. 6 And if we can bring somebody back, then 7 that's the most important thing that we can possibly 8 do. Now if someone calls on a wired line, calls 911, 9 they pretty much get through all the time and the 10 call is not dropped. I've been a Verizon cell phone 11 customer as long as I've had a cell phone and I've 12 been in Fire Island since 1994 and the cell phone 13 service of which Voice Link is partially--is on the 14 cell phone service uses the same infrastructure as 15 the cell phone service, the cell phone service on-- 16 that Verizon provides on Fire Island can at the most 17 be called "spotty." 18 So there are certainly a lot of dropped 19 calls. And our greatest fear is that people will be 20 calling 911 and will have a dropped call. So we 21 can't get to someone's house 24 hours a day, 365 days 22 a year if we don't get a call. If we don't get toned 23 out and we don't have a chance to get to somebody, 24 it's possible that somebody could die. And certainly 25 since we've been doing EMS service, there is at least Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 41 1 three or four people who are alive today because we 2 started doing EMS service ten years ago. 3 And so I would urge the Public Service 4 Commission to put themselves in the place of someone 5 who is calling up for someone in your family 911 and 6 possibly getting a dropped call so that you can't 7 call 911 before the 911 operator gets all the proper 8 information so that they can alert what in Suffolk 9 County is called "Fire com" [phonetic] and get the 10 fire departments or the EMS services toned out so 11 that they can respond promptly. And, you know, 12 certainly most of our calls aren't life threatening 13 but we do get some life threatening calls. There is 14 some in Fair Harbor and Duneville [phonetic] and 15 Lonelyville. There's probably a lot more in Ocean 16 Beach. 17 And we would urge you to put yourselves in 18 our position and not to think about the money that 19 Verizon is saving by switching over everyone to Voice 20 Link and realizing that, you know, we are on a 21 somewhat isolated island and we need the best 22 possible service. And, you know, maybe sometime in 23 the future, you know, there will be a technology 24 where it will be completely automated and there won't 25 be any dropped calls in the self-service, but that Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 42 1 time is not now. 2 So thank you very much for your 3 consideration. Please reject Verizon's application. 4 Thank you. 5 [Applause] 6 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. I just want to do 7 a time check. It's almost 2:00. We're moving 8 quickly, but I just want to remind people that I want 9 everyone to be able to speak and I have 50 cards and 10 we're now at 16. So Roberta Harris, Judith Sandgren, 11 Carl Seligson, and Phil Boyle. 12 MS. ROBERTA HARRIS: Hello, my name is 13 Roberta Harris. I live in Ocean Bay Park. Much of 14 what I have to say is a reiteration of what other 15 people have said; no dial tone, no service, get 16 nowhere, four people are supposed to show up, never 17 did, ticket numbers, etcetera. So making it very 18 quick, I am waiving my right to speak because I would 19 like to turn my time over to Peter Greenberg who 20 lives in Ocean Bay Park because he has a lot more 21 interesting stuff to say than I do. 22 MR. PETER GREENBERG: I did sign up. 23 ALJ PHILLIPS: Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Greenberg, 24 I'm sorry. 25 MR. GREENBERG: I was happy to wait my turn. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 43 1 ALJ PHILLIPS: I know. Can--so can we do 2 that please? 3 MR. GREENBERG: Sure, absolutely. I-- 4 ALJ PHILLIPS: [Interposing] It also helps 5 with the court reporter. 6 MS. JUDITH SANDGREN: I'm going to be short. 7 I can't sit through this anymore. My name is Judy 8 Sandgren. I can tell you how long I've been here. 9 Can you not hear? Oh, Judy Sandgren. I've been here 10 a long time, okay? Can you hear me? I don't know 11 how to do this. I agree with everything that has 12 been said and I won't repeat it. When I went to the 13 Verizon meeting, whenever it was, recently I said I 14 had a dial tone but since I had disconnected my DSL 15 service I was out--sorry out of luck. And since then 16 Verizon has called me and said they would try to 17 reinstate it because I probably could get it. 18 My concern is that I have spent $700 at 19 least on alternate technology which is the jet pack, 20 a fancy cell phone which had, you know, which works 21 when it's during the week but not on the weekend 22 because there's too much use. If they do reconnect 23 my DSL, I want some financial consideration. Number 24 one, I don't want to pay more than I used to pay, 25 which was $29.99 a month for the DSL. And I had a Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 44 1 minimal voice service. And I want some consideration 2 for the at least $700 I have already outlaid because 3 of what they have caused me to do. 4 So that's--I don't know if that's a Public 5 Service Commission prerogative or the FCC, but 6 somebody needs to look at if they do reinstate our 7 DSL that it become affordable again. 8 [Applause] 9 MR. CARL SELIGSON: Good afternoon Judge, 10 Commissioner. My name is Carl Seligson. I am an 11 almost life-long resident of Sea View, thanks to my 12 parents who bought the house in 1945. So I've been 13 here 68 summers. I'm not here in the wintertime and 14 I applaud those, particularly the members of the 15 Ocean Beach Fire Department who are here in the 16 wintertime and who protect us all if they're called 17 upon to do so. I've heard most of what everything 18 has been said both at Tuesday night's meeting and 19 today's meeting. And I don't have any experience 20 with Voice Link because I never let it be put on. 21 I have suspended my wire line service last 22 fall, having been fortunate enough to leave before 23 Sandy. And I had it scheduled for reinstallation on 24 April 15th which is the day that I normally come 25 back. The service supposedly was turned on. When I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 45 1 got here, I had a dial tone. My experience with that 2 was not particularly good, because while I could make 3 outgoing calls, incoming calls rang one time and then 4 were disconnected. 5 And when I reached the party or if I--if the 6 party tried to reach me subsequently by cell phone or 7 other means, it turned out that they got a recording 8 saying that my phone was out of service. I 9 complained; the same story everybody has. No one-- 10 they gave me a date somebody would be there. I was 11 there all day long, 24 hours. They didn't come. I 12 called up and said what happened and they said, "Oh, 13 someone cancelled." I said, "Who cancelled?" "We 14 don't know." "Someone cancelled my appointment. 15 Give me another appointment." "No, we're not giving 16 any service appointments." So that's a common 17 complaint. 18 Let me tell you a little bit about my 19 personal background, because it does relate to Public 20 Service Commission processes; not necessarily New 21 York but including New York. I have appeared as an 22 expert financial witness in 18 different states 23 throughout my career, including New York State. I 24 have also served as a consultant to the Edison 25 Electric Institute during a period of time for six Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 46 1 years where they were having forum--fora I guess is 2 the plural for Public Service Commissioner's staff to 3 explain financial matters--and I was a great 4 participant in that both as an organizer and as a 5 speaker at those fora. 6 So that gives you a little bit of a 7 qualification thing. I recently had occasion to find 8 out that there was a presentation given by a Randy or 9 his full name is Randall Milch, M-I-L-C-H, who is the 10 Executive Vice President of Verizon on public policy 11 and I guess it's government relations, if I can read 12 this. And general counsel, excuse me. Executive 13 Vice President of public policy and general counsel. 14 Mr. Milch gave a presentation in Aspen, Colorado 15 recently to a group called the...excuse me, well 16 whatever it's called. 17 It was--the subject matter was creative 18 destruction. Now think about just that terminology, 19 "creative destruction." Basically what he was saying 20 was that we are in a new era. Everything has changed 21 over the years and continues to change, internet, 22 bah, bah, bah services, and what we're looking to do- 23 -and I think this speech should have been given to 24 shareholders, but maybe it will be, that what they're 25 looking to do is to move to keep up with things that Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 47 1 are modern and move away from things that aren't. 2 When we first came to Fire Island, I too had 3 the situation of coming down here to use a payphone. 4 Then we had a party line. Then we got an individual 5 line and now we have no line. So that kind of all 6 moves around. I was subject last Thursday to a 7 telephone, which was only two days ago, to a 8 telephone call from Verizon telling me that because I 9 had wire line service from my phone I now was 10 potentially qualified for DSL which I had tried to 11 reinstitute back in April and they told me no, they 12 weren't performing that service. 13 So I think that again that is a common 14 complaint by a lot of people. I think a lot of good 15 points have been made today by various people. I'm 16 not going to bore you with all of them. You probably 17 know what they are. But you've all got something, 18 otherwise you wouldn't be here. I don't see anybody 19 getting up and I'm going to stay to the end. But I 20 want to know if there's anybody here who is going to 21 get up and tell them that Voice Link is a great 22 service? A good service? A fair service? Nobody is 23 here to say that--anything good about Voice Link. 24 And I think that's an important point. 25 [Applause] Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 48 1 MR. SELIGSON: I understand that--Verizon's 2 point of view, as a shareholder representative while 3 I was in Wall Street first as a security analyst and 4 then as an investment banker covering the electric 5 utility as John Moran said on covering the utility 6 industry. I knew the shareholder's side-- 7 ALJ PHILLIPS: [Interposing] I'm sorry, Mr. 8 Seligson, can you-- 9 MR. SELIGSON: [Interposing] I can try. 10 ALJ PHILLIPS: --kind of wrap it up? 11 MR. SELIGSON: Oh, sure. 12 ALJ PHILLIPS: Please, thank you. 13 MR. SELIGSON: I understand the shareholder 14 point of view and the company's point of view is 15 directed directly to shareholders and not to 16 subscribers and people who take their services. 17 Thank you. 18 [Applause] 19 SENATOR PHIL BOYLE: My name is Phil Boyle. 20 I'm the State Senator representing the western part 21 of Fire Island. I'd like to-- 22 [Applause] 23 SENATOR BOYLE: I will be brief to allow the 24 residents and business owners to speak. I just want 25 to thank Your Honor, Commissioner Acampora, my former Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 49 1 colleague in the Assembly, thanks for coming, the PSC 2 staff and the department staff for holding not only 3 this hearing but also to--for extending the comment 4 period to allow more of us to have our say about 5 Voice Link technology. 6 Fire Islanders are a hearty crew. They live 7 and work on a barrier island. But part of that is 8 make everyone knowing that communications is key. 9 Whatever they do in life, communications is key. I 10 speak very proudly as the only active volunteer 11 firefighter in the New York State legislature. As 12 the Commissioner said, the Chief said minutes mean 13 lives out here, both emergency medical services but 14 also in fires. The houses on Fire Island are pretty 15 close together. There is brush in between them and 16 the wind blows. The fires spread very quickly when 17 they start. 18 I urge you to consider that because the 19 worst possible thing is the first respondents here do 20 a great job when they get the call, but they have to 21 get the call to be there in a hurry, to put out the 22 fire or save the life. I'll just end with saying 23 that it's been a long time since I was in law school, 24 but I remember the Latin phrase "Res ipsa loquiter." 25 It means the thing speaks for itself. A couple of Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 50 1 Tuesdays ago I had a hearing here, a forum on Voice 2 Link and it was packed. 3 Today on a Saturday in August, one of the 4 last beautiful Saturdays in August, this room is 5 again packed. We're not talking about a couple of 6 people saying, "I have trouble with this new 7 technology." Many people on Fire Island, business 8 owners and residents have trouble with this new 9 technology. Common sense dictates you do not test a 10 new technology on a barrier island. I urge you not 11 to let Verizon do it. 12 [Applause] 13 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. The next three 14 speakers are Peter Greenberg, Bill Vitiello, Dave 15 Lipsy, and I'll add Liv Hemper and Marina Helfst. 16 MR. PETER GREENBERG: My name is Peter 17 Greenberg and I want to thank the Senator for your 18 services as a volunteer fireman. I am also a 19 volunteer fireman with Ocean Bay Park. And I've 20 actually been coming to Fire Island for 63 years. 21 When we started with--everybody talked about the 22 party line before. Let me tell you my party line 23 experience. 1956, yes I remember Hurricane Carol. 24 Every power line on this island was down. We had a 25 party line; the phone worked. The phone worked. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 51 1 I wear three hats here; one of course being 2 a long time resident, one being a volunteer fireman 3 in which I don't have to reiterate the need for 4 adequate and quick response time. I think I can 5 speak for at least my fire chief when we tell you 6 that we are very concerned when a call comes in when 7 it gets misdirected because they don't know where 8 it's coming from and they cannot allocate the 9 resources fast enough. And last but not least, I am 10 a correspondent for CBS news. 11 I am not here in that capacity today. I am 12 not covering that story today. That would be a 13 conflict of interest for me, but I'm always on the 14 lookout for a good story. This is not a good story; 15 this is an important story. And many, many years ago 16 we put an ISDN line in at my house because I work 17 from my house here. I broadcast from my house here, 18 so now I have an occupational reason as well. 19 Verizon is denying my ability to broadcast. And for 20 those people in this room who know me, you know that 21 when I'm denied my ability to broadcast I tend to 22 broadcast a little louder. 23 That's not a threat; it's what I do for a 24 living. Again, I'm not representing CBS here today. 25 I'm representing myself; however it's an occupational Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 52 1 example of how this is affecting me. And last but 2 not least I noticed in your presentation that the PSC 3 is asking Verizon to essentially evaluate its own 4 service. This is absurd. That's like asking Boeing 5 to build a plane and tell you it's safe. 6 [Laughter] 7 MR. GREENBERG: I'm sorry. The evaluation 8 needs to be independent and based on what I've heard 9 today, I think you've heard the evaluation. Thank 10 you very much. 11 [Applause] 12 MR. BILL VITIELLO: Thank you for arranging 13 the hearing. My name is Bill Vitiello. I'm a 14 cottage owner at Point O'Woods and I work from my 15 home five to six months a year. I'm a Verizon 16 shareholder. I'm a co-founder of a telecom firm in 17 the nineties that supported 5,800--that's okay. I'll 18 wait. 19 [Pause] 20 MR. VITIELLO: I'm a Verizon shareholder and 21 a co-founder of a telecom firm that supported 5,800 22 small and medium-sized businesses on behalf of Nynex 23 [phonetic]. Prior to Sandy, I had two phone lines 24 and DSL service. With ten months to restore phone 25 service, Point O'Woods is the only community today Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 53 1 that does not have a single copper pair in service. 2 Despite claims to the contrary, not even our fire 3 department has been restored. Our field is used more 4 commonly than any other field for air rescue. 5 Our first responders don't have 6 communications that they can rely on, but yet 7 helicopters are landing in the middle of the night, 8 mostly on weekends, and we don't have any 9 communication services; this despite the fact that a 10 fiber line is still intact running through our 11 community. To make this brief, I will put it into 12 three categories; what is known publicly, what we've 13 been told by Verizon executives, and what the reality 14 of the situation is. 15 Publicly we know Verizon landline business 16 has been for sale for years, two to three years at 17 least. The land line business is union and the 18 wireless business is not. They are two separate 19 companies. 20 [Applause] 21 MR. VITIELLO: The third, public 22 information, this should not come as a surprise to 23 anybody. Verizon would prefer that the PSC oversight 24 go away, as it is on the wireless side. So let's 25 talk about some realities and some things that have Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 54 1 happened. The first few months we were given repair 2 appointments like everybody said. And we were told 3 the network was damaged beyond repair. There's a 4 couple of key statements that keep resonating over 5 and over and over again. And if you hear them enough 6 times, you start to believe that they are true. 7 If you speak to the technicians, as we 8 believe your obligation is to really dig down and 9 find the facts; they did more splicing after Irene 10 than what was needed to repair our network after 11 Sandy. Verizon is a world-class carrier. I am proud 12 to be a shareholder. I was proud to work with them. 13 I've never been more disappointed. If they wanted to 14 repair us, we would have been repaired in one week. 15 After 9/11, the stock exchange, which was totally 16 destroyed, was put back in business in three to four 17 days. 18 [Applause] 19 MR. VITIELLO: They sent technicians, not 20 regulators, to address the problem. The lack of 21 response and not allowing the techs on the Island to 22 do what they were trained to do, wanted to do, begged 23 to do, and were fired for doing without approval, 24 okay? Which was later cast as "the man had sandals 25 on," okay, what really happened was Verizon sees the Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 55 1 opportunity to advance and accelerate plans that had 2 been in the works for years. They want to go to a 3 wireless solution. As a shareholder I want the extra 4 profit. As a customer I want them to be responsible. 5 As the PSC, I believe you have an obligation 6 to make sure that they do it responsibly and give us 7 comparable service, which really should be talked 8 about, comparable service. Another thing that 9 Verizon is trying to position is, "We only have to 10 give you voice. We don't have to give you internet." 11 Let's talk about that for a minute. I'm not sure if 12 everybody knows, but the techs can tell you and a lot 13 of other people know; voice needs two copper lines or 14 a pair to work. Both have to work or you'll have no 15 voice conversation. That's the minimum that you have 16 to provide, that they have to provide as a carrier of 17 last resort. 18 If you look at DSL, it's not a separate 19 line. DSL only needs one of those two existing pair 20 that are served you, but yet they position it like 21 it's internet and we don't have to give you that. 22 It's not a separate service; it's a service carried 23 on a voice line. It's a feature of that voice line 24 that they are mandated to carry. It's easier to 25 restore DSL than it is a voice line, because if one Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 56 1 of my pair is out, they can still give voice line to 2 all of us on the other pair, if just one of those 3 lines is working. That's the irony of the situation. 4 So it's important when you say we don't want 5 to talk about data, we know the phone company doesn't 6 want to talk about data. We know the phone company 7 doesn't want to talk about the fact that I can't buy- 8 -I am--I have 22 days left in my billing month. I am 9 over 50 gig, okay, and they won't sell me a bigger 10 package. It doesn't exist. They'll charge me 11 overage charges of double as a penalty, but they 12 haven't put the tariff in place for large volume 13 users. 14 I used to work here; I can no longer work 15 here. I cannot give a web-x presentation. I 16 currently own a software company and I do web-x 17 presentations across--around the world. I can't do 18 it because of the latency in the internet service. 19 So it is definitely affecting my ability to be out 20 here in my cottage. What else were we told? We had 21 a meeting at Scatten Arps [phonetic] where the FIA 22 invited, begged, repeatedly requested, which took a 23 month, okay, in May. This was months after the 24 storm. Nobody was coming down. 25 I myself called people to say please come Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 57 1 fill the void of information with facts, not rumors. 2 I thought it would be the right thing to do to help 3 us. They came. Regulatory staff member informed us 4 that they had increased the capacity on our tower by 5 threefold. And even though they did that, they 6 didn't need to because their prior studies, which I 7 would respectfully ask you to verify, show that their 8 current capacity was only going to peak out at 80% 9 even with the 1,100 DSL customers, all the voice 10 customers, etcetera. They had more than enough 11 capacity to handle it. We said that was one of our 12 main concerns; capacity. 13 On a landline you get an "all circuits are 14 busy." On a cell switch you don't. You just get a 15 quick busy the minute you hit the last digit. So 16 people may not know that we're out of capacity. But 17 if you think someone is talking on the phone, it's 18 probably a capacity issue. Someone else said that 19 they needed three cell towers by some previous lower 20 ruling to triangulate. We don't have any 21 triangulation here. Point O'Woods actually offered 22 to put a cell tower up immediately after the storm. 23 We're a privately owned community and we did 24 not go through--need to go through the typical public 25 hearing and I said, "You can start building it on Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 58 1 Monday." We got the approval from the board and 2 within 24 hours I made the offer three times. No one 3 ever even called back to have an initial 4 conversation. So there was no intention. What 5 really happened was this was an opportunity to 6 accelerate the plans. That's what people that know 7 what's going on, they are aware of. The other 8 misstatement that they want to tell you over and over 9 again, and we're starting to believe it because I 10 hear it in the comments. 11 We're only three to four months of revenue. 12 Let's assume we were 12 months. Do you think we 13 would even show up 3,800 customers the revenue? Even 14 if we bought the triple play, we would not even show 15 up as a rounding error on the balance sheet of 16 Verizon. Yet they're waiving this as they can't 17 afford to service us because we are only three 18 months. Again, we fit the model. It's just that 19 this is a train wreck. We fit the model because 20 we'll be gone. They think we'll be gone, but we go 21 back to our offices. We go to political fundraisers. 22 We get more exercise in the winter than we 23 do in the summer. So this is not the end where we're 24 going away until next year. So the revenue issue 25 really, really bothers me. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 59 1 ALJ PHILLIPS: I'm sorry. I just want to 2 check in with you because it's about eight minutes in 3 now. Is there a way to-- 4 MR. VITIELLO: [Interposing] Yes, I'll be 5 very fast. 6 ALJ PHILLIPS: --sum up? 7 MR. VITIELLO: I want to put on the record 8 that--the issue of not being able to get it repaired 9 because the code is there. As Tom suggested, oh 10 maybe it was a mistake. She was not mistaken. I 11 begged her three times, okay, to put that in. And I 12 suggest everybody call Verizon today after the 13 meeting and see if you get the same experience. 14 There is no code for a repair. Okay? Now if you 15 call a special number, those people have probably 16 already been called to say, "Hey, take the repair 17 order." 18 Call the main number. Call the regular 19 number. They'll tell you if it's in the system or 20 not, okay? They can't contact in the next two hours 21 all of the customer service reps. This week I 22 already mentioned the--not a larger plan, okay? What 23 has Verizon done? If none of you have met Alicia Eve 24 [phonetic], I suggest you speak to her. She is one 25 of the nicest, brightest, most articulate women I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 60 1 have met all summer. She has a Harvard MBA, Harvard 2 JD, and as of four weeks ago was working for the 3 governor. Now she's working for regulatory, and I 4 wish I was on the same side of this issue with her, 5 because she is absolutely delightful. But 6 unfortunately she came to meet a few of us to solve 7 our problem. When the stock exchange was down after 8 9/11 they sent techs. They were up in three days. 9 With all due respect, Alicia, you're not here to fix 10 our lines, with the PSC meeting coming in two weeks, 11 okay? So where's the engineer from Hotpot 12 [phonetic]? Where are the techs that know how to 13 repair the lines and how come they are not here 14 fixing us? 15 [Pause] 16 MR. VITIELLO: We realize that. This past 17 week, as a result of this hearing, Verizon reached 18 out and they called every single Voice Link customer. 19 Vandy Walker [phonetic] from Point O'Woods begged me 20 to put her name into the record. And she said, "They 21 called me. I started to tell them, Bill, about my 22 problems and they said, 'Can you hear me?' And she 23 says, 'Yes, but I want you--' she said, 'Thank you 24 very much. Voice Link is working,'" and hung up. 25 So the report you're going to get I'm sure, Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 61 1 if you haven't gotten it already, is going to say, 2 "We contacted 500 people and their Voice Links are 3 working fine." That's a false statement. I would 4 verify it. The fiber line is up and working. We 5 know that. Why would we put copper back in the 6 ground? Our ground is wet every full moon, every new 7 tide. It doesn't make any sense. The lines up on 8 the pole? They're working. That's how it should be 9 restored. 10 I'm going to wrap up for you. Okay, so 11 where do we go from here and what do we do? I'm 12 wrapping, thank you. As a customer, I'm concerned 13 that a continued resistance to full restoration will 14 leave us with no viable operation other than formally 15 requesting the PSC oversight of all services sold 16 including wireless. I respectfully ask that the PSC 17 confirm all of the facts that they are presented, 18 because we as a community will and we will be back to 19 the table to present them. So it will save future 20 embarrassment. Thank you for your time and for 21 listening. Thank you. 22 [Applause] 23 MS. LIV HEMPER: My name is Liv Hemper. I'm 24 from Saltaire. Do you hear me? I'm going to address 25 essentially just the Voice Link which I have Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 62 1 experienced--which I've been experienced--down? 2 Okay. Is that better? 3 ALJ PHILLIPS: You have to hold it close. 4 MS. HEMPER: This way? Is that better? 5 Okay. Okay, I'll just address the Voice Link if I 6 can help it. Dialing out problems; so many times I 7 dial out, especially when I dial somebody's cell 8 phone number I keep getting interrupted at the end of 9 the call, the dialing service, "Welcome to Verizon 10 Wireless. Your feature update could not be 11 completed. If you think you received this message in 12 error, please hang up and dial again." And it said-- 13 and then it gives a message number. I don't even 14 know what that has to do with my phone call. 15 But anyway, that three or four times, after 16 you have tried that three or four times you are ready 17 to give up or throw the phone out the window. 18 That's--and another problem with dialing is you have 19 to be speedy dialing it because if you don't do it 20 fast enough that same message will come up again in 21 the middle of your dial. That's number one. 22 Incoming calls, I have people call me. They say they 23 get--again, "Welcome to Verizon Wireless." And the 24 person, "This--your call cannot be completed." For a 25 whole day somebody tried me. It was important. I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 63 1 lost it. 2 The quality of calls; they are too loud. I 3 stand--I have to put the receiver at arm's length 4 sometimes to be able to understand the person who is- 5 -it sounds like he is yelling, he or she is yelling, 6 but it is terrible. Then the quality is also 7 metallic, it echoes and is unintelligible at times so 8 that I have to ask again and again, "Can you please 9 repeat? I can't understand you." That's really all, 10 but I just want you to know I'm a senior living alone 11 full time on Long--on Fire Island so my telephone is 12 very important to me. I'm sure you can all 13 understand that. This Voice Link may be good in five 14 years, but not now. I would urge the PSC to disallow 15 Verizon its requests. Thank you very much. 16 [Applause] 17 ALJ PHILLIPS: Okay. Again, I just want to 18 do a quick check. Dave Lipsy, did you say you didn't 19 want to speak? Is he still here? Okay. Okay, 20 Marina Helfst and Angie Carpenter? 21 MS. MARINA HELFST: Hello, my name is Marina 22 Helfst. I'm a summer resident of Saltaire. I want 23 to echo the concerns that have already been expressed 24 by those people who spoke before me and to introduce 25 an issue that I don't think has been introduced Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 64 1 before; and that is the issue of safety. As we 2 probably all know, wireless communications work 3 through the sending of microwave radiation through 4 the air. And here in Ocean Beach you guys have a big 5 tower high off the ground that is doing that. 6 And Saltaire Verizon has gone ahead and 7 installed something like 9 to 11, there is some 8 controversy as to how many actually there are 9 antennae. And these antennae are deployed through 10 the village. Some of them are in very close 11 proximity to living quarters. And I am just a 12 citizen. I'm not an engineer. I have been doing a 13 lot of research trying to figure out, you know, is 14 this regulated? 15 The SEC does have guidelines and does have-- 16 sets limits for exposure to the general population to 17 the microwave radiation that is coming out of the 18 antennas. And when you have a high antenna like he 19 you are apparently excluded because they are assuming 20 you're safe. But the assumption is not so when the 21 antennas are placed below ten meters. And all the 22 antennas in Saltaire are below ten meters. And as 23 far as I know, there has been no effort whatsoever to 24 measure emissions or exposure from these antennas. 25 Just because you can't see it and you can't Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 65 1 smell it and you can't taste it, it doesn't mean it's 2 not there. It's there; research is plentiful. There 3 is thousands and thousands--there is volumes written 4 on the ill effects of this radiation. Also these 5 antennas are installed. They are distributed antenna 6 systems and they are technology agnostic, which means 7 that they can be used for link--Voice Link and they 8 can be used for anything else. So they--as far as--I 9 don't know if this is true or not, I'm not sure if 10 they will be forthcoming with the information, but 11 they could very easily use these antenna to boost 12 their own wireless, Verizon wireless service. 13 Which to me seems unfair since I'm an AT&T 14 carrier why, you know, I'm not getting any benefit 15 from it and it seems like they are taking an unfair 16 advantage of their already--monopoly that they have 17 on us. And just to conclude, I really--I have a lot 18 more to say but it's a long day, so basically I would 19 just like to conclude that I'm formally requesting 20 the PSC reject Verizon's request to discontinue its 21 current wire line service. Thank you. 22 [Applause] 23 HONORABLE ANGIE CARPENTER: Good afternoon. 24 My name is Angie Carpenter. I am a Suffolk County 25 treasurer and the last two years have been Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 66 1 legislature and also a member of the Fire Island law 2 enforcement and security council that was mentioned 3 earlier. And I too am here today to publicly request 4 that the PSC reject Verizon's request to abandon the 5 wire line service on the west end of Fire Island and 6 replace it with Voice Link. 7 The impact on the community of residents and 8 the hundreds of thousands of visitors during the 9 summer season will be devastating to many and on many 10 fronts. To use Superstorm Sandy, an unprecedented 11 storm which decimated sections of New York and New 12 Jersey as an excuse to force the residents of Fire 13 Island off traditional wire line service on to 14 wireless is really unconscionable. 15 [Applause] 16 HONORABLE CARPENTER: You know, LIPA has 17 been the butt of much criticism, but even LIPA had 18 crews working all over the island and restored power 19 to everyone within weeks. But Verizon did very, very 20 little. It appears that this might be a strategy to 21 force Verizon's customers away from the protection of 22 tariff services, which holds them accountable to the 23 PSC and off into the unregulated wireless arena. A 24 move like this would most definitely compromise 25 public safety and emergency services, and I think Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 67 1 we've heard that time and again today, put an undue 2 burden on the local municipalities, and threaten to 3 damage and undermine an already compromised quality 4 of life to the residents and visitors and further 5 erode the very, very fragile economic climate for the 6 businesses on the island. 7 Again I respectfully request that you 8 wholeheartedly reject Verizon's request to abandon a 9 land line service. And I would also like to thank 10 the PSC. You know, coming to Fire Island, as we all 11 know, is not an easy task. But you took the time to 12 be here where the people are at a time that the 13 people are here, and especially to the Commissioner. 14 She is one of five. She took the time to be here 15 today and I appreciate it. 16 [Applause] 17 HONORABLE CARPENTER: Commissioner Acampora 18 has a long history of service to the residents of New 19 York and Long Island. And I want to personally thank 20 you for being here. And I appreciated your comments 21 earlier that you will communicate to your fellow 22 members, your fellow Commission members just the real 23 sentiment and the passion that everyone here has 24 today for this issue. Thank you very much. 25 [Applause] Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 68 1 MS. PHILLIP: Okay. I'm just going to give 2 you another time check. I'm going to keep plowing 3 through but we're at about 2:30 and I've gone 4 throughout about half of the cards, so we're just 5 going to keep moving. The next give speakers are 6 Alice Herb, Jon Gordon, Joan Evans, Esther Roshwaab 7 and Eileen O'Neil. And again--are they still here? 8 Alice Herb? No? Jon Gordon? Joan Evans? Esther 9 Roshwaab? Are you Eileen? I'm sorry. Okay. Okay, 10 just give your--both--you can go. I don't know who 11 is who, so please state your name. 12 MS. JOAN EVANS: Hello, my name is Joan 13 Evans and I am from Fair Harbor, Fire Island. I 14 spend seven months per year there. And I would like 15 to make a statement about Voice Link service and 16 hearing impairment. And I will speak from my own 17 personal experience, if that's okay. And there are 18 two parts to hearing. And one is volume, which some 19 fortunate people can control by a hearing device or a 20 telephone or both. And the other part of hearing is 21 clarity of speech or word recognition. And I was 22 able to hear quite well I would say on a land line 23 and hold a long conversation. 24 And with the Voice Link service that I now 25 have my telephone is useless to me. I can't even Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 69 1 recognize who it is that is calling me and let alone 2 have a conversation with them. Communication is a 3 treasure and if you're losing your hearing you 4 experience that more than ever. And the Voice Link 5 service has really deprived me and I think many other 6 people of the ability to talk to those I love, my 7 family and friends, the people I work with, my 8 employer, the people in my community, public 9 officials such as yourselves, Congressmen, Senators, 10 emergency workers. 11 And what disturbs me is that in an emergency 12 if I could get through on the phone I would not know 13 what I was being directed to do or even if I was 14 speaking to the right person. Anecdotally I have to 15 say that somebody from Verizon called me a few days 16 ago and it took me a very long time to know who it 17 was that was calling and I finally discerned the word 18 "Verizon." So I had to ask him to call me back on my 19 cell phone, which is I would say not so great for me 20 and for husband. And so if--with many repetitions I 21 could finally understand that he wanted me to speak 22 about my service and I then did that. 23 But it's a huge loss, a huge loss and I 24 think a danger. And I didn't have this problem on a 25 landline at all. And I urge you to consider that Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 70 1 point of view when you're examining this issue. 2 Thank you for allowing me to speak. 3 [Applause] 4 MS. EILEEN O'NEIL: I'm Eileen O'Neil. I'm 5 the deputy commissioner for the Fair Harbor Dunewood 6 medical district and I just want to be on the record. 7 I did say much of this before. I think we all know 8 that the--first I want to make one point. There is a 9 lot of talk where several comments that were made 10 about Fire Island not making a significant economic 11 contribution to the bottom line of Verizon. But Fire 12 Island makes a significant contribution to the 13 economy of Long Island. And that is something that 14 we need not forget. And we need the communications 15 to continue that economic support for Long Island. 16 In terms of the medical district, this 17 failure of Verizon to even investigate what would be 18 missing with Voice Link in terms of those patients 19 who need to communicate via Med alert, that never 20 came up until I raised the question in my house when 21 they came to visit me two weeks ago. Today we heard 22 this exploratory--I found out information about what 23 is available. That information is I can't believe 24 that a company as sophisticated as Verizon is putting 25 forth a new technology and not know what they are Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 71 1 losing and in some way communicate to those whose 2 very lives depend on it. 3 There is absolutely the most appalling lack 4 of communication to the neediest people. There are 5 lots of people who can dial 911 and get through no 6 matter what system we have. But if you're not able 7 to get to a phone and you're dependent on a med 8 alert, or if you are the caregiver who has something 9 happen, the patient can then press the med alert. 10 And to have no regard for that and to look into what 11 would be lost, to me is shocking. And I want that on 12 the public record. And I, just as everybody else, I 13 am requesting that their request not be granted. 14 Thank you. 15 [Applause] 16 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. I also have cards 17 for Adam Abrams, Chris Lincoln and Marki Knopp. 18 MR. ADAM C. ABRAMS: Good afternoon, 19 Commissioner, Judge Phillips. How are you today? 20 Thank you so much for coming. My name is Adam 21 Abrams. I'm an attorney and a real estate broker 22 here on Fire Island. I'm third generation from 23 Seaview. I grew up here. This is my 46th summer 24 living on the bay. 25 I just want to point out a few things. I am Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 72 1 not a Voice Link customer. I have stayed away from 2 it. So I'm not going to comment on the success for 3 failure of that project. I will however like to 4 point out a long history of Verizon abusing the 5 residents of Fire Island. Every summer I've come out 6 here, every winter I suspend my service. When I come 7 out on in the spring, there has always been a 8 problem. I started off with a landline from my home. 9 I added what's called a dry loop DSL for my home. 10 I've had four lines and a DSL for my office when I 11 had an office in Ocean Beach. I added up how much I 12 spent from 2010 to the present. 13 They are still sending me bills, despite the 14 fact that I have cancelled my service and have 15 requested refunds. I am still being billed six 16 months later, after I was run through the whole 17 rigmarole, several tickets for repairs for people 18 that have never shown up. I am told by any number of 19 Verizon employees that, yes, we will send somebody 20 out to fix your line. It took tens of hours of my 21 time and 20 or 30 calls to finally get a straight 22 answer saying that there's no more repairs going to 23 be done on Fire Island. I spent close to $4,000 24 since 2010. That's not including the fact that 25 that's for home service and business service. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 73 1 When I tried to convert my business service 2 to my home service, it took them six months to be 3 able to do that. When I tried to port my phone 4 numbers out to another company, it took me three 5 months to do that. They had tickets that they said 6 were open, repair tickets, that's why we can't port 7 your number. I said, "I was told you can't do the 8 repairs." 9 The point is that every summer there's been 10 a problem. Every summer they've come and fixed it 11 except for this summer. Why is this summer any 12 different? Because they are looking at their bottom 13 line. The bottom line is that they've been 14 collecting revenues on Fire Island through a monopoly 15 for as long as I've been here, 46 years. And now 16 when the time has come for them to reinvest, whether 17 it's copper service, FiOS, fiber optic, or whatever 18 service will work, they are not willing to expend the 19 dollars to pay back what they have received over year 20 and years of overbilling. One of my bills I went 21 back and looked for one month was $500 for four lines 22 and a DSL. I was also phased out of my dry loop DSL 23 because it was not financially feasible for them, 24 nothing to do with the storm, but my suggestion to 25 Your Honor is to increase the scope. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 74 1 And I would urge you to push back against 2 Verizon, not only deny their application to suspend 3 the tariff. I would include in that that DSL service 4 is an essential service that needs to be required for 5 them to provide on their copper lines pairs, and that 6 everything that they've received in the past, let 7 them open their books. Let them discourse all of the 8 profits that they've earned before they start 9 requesting that they do cost cutting measures to 10 deregulate their business, and so that the people of 11 Fire Island who have supported them for years and 12 years and years get the benefit of the bargain. This 13 is a two-way agreement. This is a contract for both 14 of us. They have required us to pay outrageous 15 exorbitant prices for years and years. Now when the 16 time comes for them to put back, they want to back 17 out of their end of the agreement. 18 When LIPA was out here and the power lines 19 failed, they called in technicians from all over the 20 country to get Fire Island back on the grid. Verizon 21 has technicians all over the country. If they wanted 22 to repair the service here, it would have been done, 23 and it would have been done cheaply, affordably, 24 efficiently, but not unregulated. Thank you for your 25 time. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 75 1 [Applause] 2 MR. CHRIS LINCOLN: I'm Chris Lincoln. I'm 3 a 30 time--30-year part-time year-round resident here 4 in Ocean Beach. I'm the assistant fire chief of the 5 Ocean Beach Fire Department. By the way, if the fire 6 department did not have their copper lines we'd be 7 severely debilitated. There's no question about 8 that. 9 I'm a Verizon customer. I've had--all of 10 those years I've had two or three lines out here on 11 Fire Island. I've had five or six lines in 12 Manhattan. So I'm a--I'm a big Verizon customer. I 13 ran a computer network out here and I'm a software 14 developer like some of the other people here. I'm no 15 longer able to live here and do my work. That's 16 just--it's over without DSL. It's just not 17 economically viable nor technically viable. 18 I'd really like to--because the focus here 19 is on Voice Link, I'd like to go through this list 20 which is a bunch of features that are available on 21 copper but are not available on Voice Link. So it 22 speaks directly to the Voice Link issue. Some of 23 them are less essential like DVR. Some of them are 24 more essential for business owned--businessmen like 25 myself or the restaurant owners, and some of them are Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 76 1 essential for life for some smaller number of people, 2 as you mentioned here. 3 So I'm just going to go through the list. 4 And this is the list--this is the function--these are 5 the things that are available in copper that are not 6 available in Voice Link. That's fax machines, DVR 7 services, ATM business machines, credit card 8 processing, medical alert or other monitoring 9 services, deaf relay services for the hard of 10 hearing, that's TTY. 11 DSL which we've been talking about 12 extensively which people need for business, and also 13 DSL actually has a real effect on the economy of the 14 community at large. I mean without the DSL there's a 15 lot of people that can't live here. There's a lot of 16 people that don't want to come here anymore because 17 they don't have internet access. 18 Continuing with the list, monitored home 19 security systems, 500, 700, 900, 950, 976, 000010 20 codes, in other words international calls not 21 available on your Voice Link, calling cards, dial 22 around calls. You can't accept collect calls, third 23 party--third party billing. You can't bill any 24 changes on behalf of other carriers. So you can't 25 have international calls from other carriers. And it Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 77 1 doesn't require providing power. In other words, the 2 old copper you didn't have to have power for that 3 copper service to work. 4 E91SA guaranteed service, well Verizon will 5 tell you and in fact they've made significant efforts 6 to make 911 work, and to some degree they've made it 7 but they don't guarantee it. It's guaranteed on 8 copper. So they're formally guaranteeing that 911. 9 They're making a best effort but they're not 10 guaranteeing it. And then finally competitors can't 11 use the wires. In other words, the competitors are 12 not going to be able to use whatever system that 13 Verizon puts together. 14 So that's the list and I respectively--I 15 thank you for coming out here and I respectfully hope 16 that you will deny their application. Thank you. 17 [Applause] 18 MS. MARKI KNOPP: Hi. My name is Marki 19 Knopp and I would like you to deny Verizon, their 20 request. My husband is the gentleman that was taken 21 off the island on Monday via helicopter. He has a 22 defibrillator and a pacemaker in his body and if we 23 were able to use that--if the copper wires were 24 there, we could use that telephone service to 25 continually monitor him, but because we didn't and he Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 78 1 felt fine and he still feels fine after spending 2 three days in the hospital, had we been able to check 3 on him we probably could have gotten to the doctor 4 without him being helicoptered off the island because 5 we had no idea that this was going on inside his 6 body. So I urge you again to please deny their 7 request. Thank you. 8 [Applause] 9 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. I have cards for 10 Karen Kee, Tara McBride, and Christine--I believe 11 it's Balogna. Okay. 12 MS. KAREN KEE: My name is Karen Kee and I 13 represent--I'm a Board Member of Ocean Bay Park 14 Association, and I represent well over 200 residents. 15 I've been serving on the board since 1985 and I'm 16 here to present the historic facts of Verizon 17 through--though claiming Superstorm Sandy was the 18 catalyst that caused this--them to abandon copper 19 wire, in fact I have examples, communications, and 20 photographs demonstrating that they had abandoned 21 proper maintenance and repair activities dating back 22 to 2009. 23 They were not completing, not repairing 24 lines that were flooded, that had water in the vault. 25 What they did was they took them out until they Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 79 1 dried. And showing such disrespect for us, they took 2 them out and blocked a fire hydrant and left it out 3 for well over a month, a deep hole, no access to the 4 fire hydrant. We notified Verizon that afternoon and 5 it took a month for them to cover up the hole they 6 had--they had created. 7 We have similar stories along the bay and 8 that connects Point O'Woods, the Bay Walk, to 9 Seaview. It's a very important wire that is buried 10 there and it floods continually. Every full moon it 11 is flooded and any rainstorm it's flooded, and there 12 is no attempt to get that to work. And this now is 13 2010 that this has been happening since. They could 14 have easily brought the line above ground. There's a 15 telephone pole right there. We said "Why aren't you 16 wiring to the telephone pole?" And they said, "Oh, 17 it's not cost effective. We're going to just leave 18 it here." 19 What we're concluding from this behavior is 20 that they had intended to abandon Fire Island long 21 ago. And when Superstorm Sandy hit they said, "All 22 right. We can get out of here now. PSC will believe 23 that it's impossible to go back and they're going to 24 grant this tariff." I think that what happened was 25 back in 2009 or earlier they said "We're out of here. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 80 1 And then the PSC will certainly accept our story 2 after Sandy." 3 I also want to add that I attended that very 4 private meeting with Alicia Eve, who worked for Cuomo 5 in regulatory and was just brought over to Verizon in 6 regulatory. And she took copious notes on everything 7 we said, and there were four of us at that meeting. 8 And her conclusion was "I will bring this information 9 and these comments back to the people at Verizon who 10 need to hear it." And I groaned and said, "Why don't 11 we ever meet an operations person instead of 12 regulatory and public relations people to explain the 13 technical aspects of why they can't repair?" 14 All I ever hear is it's totally destroyed. 15 It's beyond recognition, beyond repair. How many 16 wires is that we're talking about? Is it--I can't be 17 all the wires because people are receiving copper 18 wires. So how many is that? They serve the Fire 19 Island, the fire departments and they manage to get 20 copper wire working there, and we don't know how many 21 other wires they could repair. 22 Finally, the point I want to make is that 23 we're not a cash cow for Verizon. They lose money 24 serving us but we all know that that revenue stream 25 that is lost is included in the rates they charge. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 81 1 The rate structure, when they apply for a rate 2 structure as you probably know, includes the entire 3 Verizon balance sheet for this region. So the fact 4 that they're losing money here is expected. They're 5 a carrier of last resort and so they have to provide 6 and lose money, as most of them do. But the rate 7 structure includes the loss. So they're not losing 8 money. And that's all I wanted you to note in here. 9 I also, should you be interested, have 10 photographs of the disastrous holes they have left, 11 the dates of them, and the dates they repaired it. 12 Many--two of which are two years for them to get it 13 right and say "Wow, this floods all the time. Maybe 14 we should fix it." So should you be interested I 15 have those photographs. Thank you for that. Do you 16 want them? 17 ALJ PHILLIPS: You may give them to me. 18 MS. KEE: All right. I'll hand them to you 19 now. 20 [Applause] 21 MS. TARA MCBRIDE-HESSLIN: I have lots of 22 pictures too. I can email them if you're interested. 23 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you, Karen. 24 MS. MCBRIDE-HESSLIN: Hi. My name is Tara 25 McBride-Hesslin. Thank you for coming. I too object Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 82 1 to Verizon's tariff and I hope you'll reject it. I 2 live year-round in Lonleyville with my husband and 3 three children. All four of our landlines worked 4 throughout the storm up until early March. 5 My husband's a volunteer firefighter in Fair 6 Harbor. Two days after the storm, Connor [phonetic] 7 came out with members of the department to clear the 8 roads for emergency services. Because our house had 9 working and DSL, Connor and volunteer members were 10 able to stay at our house and work safely for three 11 weeks, readying the island for residents' returns. 12 When our phone lines went out in March, both at home 13 and for our small business DSL fax line, etcetera, 14 Verizon promised, like many others, to send someone 15 out, issued trouble tickets, then did an about face 16 and refused to come months later. The presidential 17 customer relations escalation department, who I've 18 had a four-year relationship with, refused to answer 19 my calls. 20 Most alarmingly though, Verizon left my 21 family without access to 911 for three weeks. It was 22 only after we placed many, many calls to the PSC and 23 wrote letters to elected officials on state and 24 county levels did Verizon finally install the new 25 Voice Link wireless system to our home. Again, it Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 83 1 took three weeks without 911. From what Verizon's 2 reps told me, we were the first to have the system on 3 Fire Island. 4 Unfortunately, the system proved unreliable 5 from the very start and had to be replaced within the 6 first week. The sound quality has always been poor. 7 It sounds under water when you're dialing. I can't 8 hear anybody. Some people said the volume was loud. 9 That's not the case for me. My children, friends, 10 and family tell me over and over again that when they 11 call the house the call is dropped or it makes and 12 alarming sound, and also they get very odd messages. 13 It prevents--Voice Link presents many challenges 14 Verizon doesn't want to talk about in public. 15 I'd like you to consider this scenario. 16 Grandma is watching my kids and suffers a stroke 17 while I'm in the city. My six-year-old tries to call 18 911, as he has been taught to do, but the power went 19 out during the storm and the battery backup on the 20 Voice Link system is dead. My son searches through 21 the drawers of our house for the extra double A 22 batteries, luckily finds three, opens the Voice Link 23 device, replaces the battery, and finally dials 911. 24 Oops, a little too late, they can't come. It's too 25 late. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 84 1 I think a six-year-old could probably find 2 the batteries and replace them with some instruction, 3 but younger than that I seriously doubt. Verizon 4 will say the Voice Link system is better than a 5 landline because it identifies the location of the 6 emergency instantly, but without power that argument 7 falls flat. 8 Of course I'm glad it has the E911 feature, 9 but I suggest teaching children to be aware of where 10 they are as an easy fix, and one educators are 11 already addressing. Ignoring the serious risks 12 associated with teaching a small child how to locate 13 and change a battery backup system, particularly in 14 an area that LIPA's infrastructure is prone to fail, 15 is seriously negligent on Verizon's part. Verizon 16 will also try to blame the copper infrastructure and 17 as you know that--I'm going to skip that because we 18 already covered that. 19 My concern is that if Verizon is doing this 20 to me and other affluent seasonal residents, I'm sure 21 it's going to happen to many other folks, seniors, 22 and low income families that do not have the time or 23 resources to make their voices heard. Verizon's 24 decision to abandon copper will save the company 25 millions and I understand why from a financial Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 85 1 perspective the decision is strategic, but it puts 2 many people in danger. I don't want blood to have to 3 be shed before Verizon is held accountable. We need 4 to have measures put in place that ensure what 5 happens to us doesn't happen to other people in our 6 region or across the country. 7 I spoke before about Verizon's notice to me 8 saying that they were going to investigate the 9 facilities on Fire Island before Sandy. I'd like to 10 know if and how that investigation is under way, and 11 how other Fire Islanders can testify about their 12 experiences prior to Sandy. Notice of this 13 investigation should be made public. It's 14 particularly important that this investigation become 15 widely known and published so that comments can be 16 requested and others can attest to their longstanding 17 frustrations with Verizon and their lack of attention 18 to the infrastructure over the past four or five 19 years. 20 I'm going to skip a lot of this. My 21 understanding is that from an article published by 22 the FCC and a report in the National Regulatory 23 Research Institute, that carrier of last resort is in 24 place in New York as of April 12th. I can't find a 25 piece of legislation that changed this law, so I Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 86 1 don't know how an opinion by the PSC can change this 2 as I understand the PSC found that the availability 3 of basic telephone service was widely sufficient. If 4 service here on Fire Island is any indication, the 5 PSC mustn't have had all the facts at hand when they 6 came to that conclusion. And I'd like to understand 7 how they came to that conclusion that basic telephone 8 service was widely sufficient and that carrier of 9 last resort didn't apply, because I've been asking 10 since March to have my phone restored and that seemed 11 to be ignored over and over again. And, like 12 everybody else, my main concern is for wire line 13 services during emergency outages. 14 Verizon has stated where existing wire 15 copper pairs are functional they'll continue to use 16 them and provide services to the extent possible, but 17 when my DSL came back on in early May Verizon refused 18 to repair it. Only this week, after the angry mob 19 attacked them at the last hearing, did they finally 20 call and say that they would reinstate my DSL. They 21 sent four technicians out yesterday and they found 22 that, yes, the router worked and that the line was 23 fine, but that I needed to sign a new terms of 24 service agreement which I printed out and looked at 25 and it basically said you have no guarantee that the Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 87 1 phone lines going to work. We can take it away from 2 you at any given time. 3 So they discontinued my DSL service even 4 though I said on numerous occasions not to change any 5 of my lines, like everybody else here. So they've 6 been--they've been lying basically to everybody and 7 to you. And I'm really just concerned about 8 emergency services. Data will work itself out, but I 9 want to have access to emergency services for my kids 10 and the way they treated me and left us without 911 11 for three weeks and now have given me a Voice Link 12 service that doesn't work consistently, isn't 13 adequate, and I hope you will reject them. Thank 14 you. 15 [Applause] 16 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. Is Gail Davis 17 here? Okay. Gail Davis, Deborah May, and Eric 18 Palatnik. 19 MS. GAIL DAVIS: Thank you for coming today. 20 We really all appreciate it very much. I find the 21 Voice Link service to be substandard. I believe it's 22 inadequate, unsafe, and unreliable. I have the Voice 23 Link service because when I came out here in March 24 and actually even earlier in January we did not have 25 any voice telephone service. We had no electricity Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 88 1 but I have a backup non electric telephone that I've 2 had for years but that failed to work as well. So I 3 got the Voice Link. 4 Unfortunately, as everybody has testified 5 already, often there are dropped calls. I call. I 6 don't get through. Often I call and somebody says 7 "Hello? Hello?" And they don't hear anything. They 8 hang up. 9 But my main concern--and I have two 10 concerns. One concern is the DSL and data service. 11 I'm very concerned with the emergency aspects that 12 are nonexistent in Voice Link. DSL and internet 13 service is no longer a luxury. It's an essential. 14 This is the way of the future. It is our 15 communication. It in some senses--some people 16 communicate through internet more so than the 17 telephone system nowadays. The fact that we don't 18 have DSL and no data service is I think very poor. 19 The emergency--the lack of emergency 20 services of Voice Link is also I feel unsafe and 21 unreliable. Without electricity, if the electricity 22 goes in another storm which is bound to happen at 23 some point, there's no way to contact the outside. 24 Voice Link says they have 36 rather than 72, 25 according to the terms of service that I received, Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 89 1 hours of backup service. Only two of which are 2 voice utilized, able to be utilized by talk time. In 3 Sandy, the wireless tower generator did not work. So 4 there would not be any service in any event if there 5 was--if there was not electricity and there would not 6 be the wireless tower. So there would be nothing. 7 We are a barrier island, as many people have 8 said. We particularly need access and communication 9 to the outside world, whether it be through internet 10 and copper hard wire. In an emergency, that is the 11 only reliable backup is hard wire. That's what we 12 need and that's what we believe we're entitled to. 13 It's disconcerting that Verizon let the 14 copper and--left the copper and trenches exposed to 15 the elements previously it seemed, according to the 16 testimony from 2009. And it seems that the damage to 17 the copper was of Verizon's own making. These seem 18 to be a self-created condition and certainly Verizon 19 should not benefit from such a self-created 20 condition. It's also disconcerting that in many 21 reports of homeowners--and I don't know whether 22 there's been testimony here today but there was the 23 other day at the other hearing--that when they 24 returned after Sandy both their voice and DSL 25 landlines were working. Then mysteriously the DSL Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 90 1 lines failed shortly thereafter. 2 We have all been paying the universal 3 service charge. We've been paying our bills for 4 many, many years. I'm a 35-year-old resident of 5 Saltaire and only today we find out that it's not the 6 cables to the island that have been destroying and 7 hurt. It's now cables on the island, and which is 8 even more disconcerting because Verizon's lack of 9 repair and self-creating this condition. 10 I also understand that all the 11 municipalities on Fire Island have fiber optic phone 12 and data service which works. Verizon has chosen not 13 to provide the residents which I believe is certainly 14 putting money above people. After years of paying 15 the universal service charge and our fees and being 16 loyal customers, this is no way to treat loyal 17 customers. Therefore, we respectfully ask that PSC 18 deny Verizon its request. Thank you. 19 [Applause] 20 MS. DEBORAH MAY: Hi there to those of you 21 who are still here. My name is Deborah May and I 22 live at 31 Island Walk in Lonleyville. I'm also a 23 member of the Board of Directors of the Taxpayers 24 Association of Lonleyville, and I'm here both as a 25 representative myself and also of many of the other Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 91 1 homeowners in Lonleyville. 2 Lonleyville's in a unique situation. Our 3 community, yes, was impacted by Hurricane Sandy, 4 although not as badly as some of the neighboring 5 towns. Many of our homes in Lonleyville have working 6 DSL and landline service. So while I know we're 7 supposed to be talking about Voice Link, our response 8 to Voice Link is that we're terrified that we may 9 have to take it. We have been told that if the 10 landlines fail we will not get them fixed, and I 11 think a lot of people have talked today about how 12 they've refused to repair the lines. We have been 13 left with some people who have perfectly functioning 14 service, other people that don't have any. 15 Unfortunately, I'm one of the people who 16 doesn't have any. There's a small cluster of 17 approximately five homes and I have been asking since 18 April for Verizon to come check a connection on the 19 pole, much like Daryl did in his conversation a long 20 time ago in one--at the beginning of the hearing 21 where he was talking about a line being broken. My 22 pole came down and I've been asking them to reconnect 23 the line to the pole, and they keep telling me they 24 can't do it. And finally I got a person who told me 25 they didn't have any parts to connect it, which that Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 92 1 was sort of my response. I laughed and I said 2 "You're not telling the truth." So after the hearing 3 two weeks ago they called me and said "Maybe we'll 4 see if we can get somebody to come out and check your 5 pole. We'll call you back tomorrow." But still 6 there's been nothing. 7 So aside from calling other people who have 8 Voice Link and realizing our calls don't go through 9 and the quality of the calls is bad, we're terrified 10 that we're going to be forced to go to Voice Link. 11 When early in the season I asked the people who were 12 selling Voice Link if I have a cellphone why do I 13 want Voice Link, and they had a hard time answering 14 me. So I said, "So you're asking me to pay for a 15 second poor quality cellphone when my first cellphone 16 also drops calls and doesn't have good service." So 17 that's been a concern. 18 We've really been left a lot of--out in the 19 cold with many of the responses. They haven't 20 responded to calls. They again tell us that they're 21 coming and they don't come. Finally they tell us 22 they're not fixing it. At the beginning of the 23 season, many of the Verizon technicians told us they 24 could have Lonleyville up and running in a few days, 25 but then they were told they couldn't do anything. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 93 1 So we were left without being able to get our lines 2 fixed. 3 When many people are on the island, all are 4 trying to access their phones and internet via the 5 Verizon internet services, whether it be Voice Link 6 or cellphones or some people with AT&T and other 7 Sprint, all using the broadband. The calls aren't 8 working. The internet connections through cellular 9 hotspots aren't going. If there's a change in 10 service that's being made, it shouldn't be one that 11 leaves us in fear of having to get Voice Link. It 12 should be something that would be more of a concern 13 of is it going to do what we need. We're afraid of 14 it because it doesn't work. 15 You've heard today--I don't need to go into 16 it again--many, many reasons about why it doesn't 17 work. The safety concerns, the access for first 18 responders. We have several EMT first responders in 19 our community who are not getting the signals. They 20 do have Voice Link and they're not getting the 21 signals in a timely way. With the Verizon terms of 22 service, there's a disclaimer that talks about 23 limitations on 9-11 service--911 emergency services, 24 and it warns the customer that using the service may 25 be subject to network congestion and reduced routing Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 94 1 or processing speed. That doesn't give me great 2 confidence in the fact that they're going to get 3 there if there's an emergency. 4 Since the last hearing, many of us who 5 provided complaints at that hearing have been called 6 by Verizon and asked if we would be happy if they got 7 our phones and DSL working. Of course we said "Yes 8 we would. We would have been happy with that back in 9 April, but you didn't do it." So they've called. 10 They've said they're going to call us back or fix 11 things, but they haven't called us back and they 12 haven't fixed things yet. 13 I have been one of the people who have been 14 required to pay my bill for a nonworking line for the 15 entire summer. And when I said to them "Why do I-- 16 why can't you credit it? My line doesn't work," they 17 says, "No, your only check is--your only option is to 18 get rid of that line and take Voice Link, and then 19 you won't have to pay for the line anymore." And 20 when I said to them, "Yes, I understand that but this 21 is a temporary ruling and I want to maintain my line 22 in case the ruling goes against Verizon." The 23 response I received from Verizon, "The ruling will 24 not go against us." Yeah. So what I want to say is, 25 "Given the amount of profit and tax breaks that Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 95 1 Verizon has, it seems reasonable to require them to 2 either fix the copper landlines, install fiber optic 3 cable which would be less susceptible to weather 4 damage, or set up a wireless system with reasonable 5 cost data options that has adequate broadband or 6 strength to work. 7 Please don't allow Verizon to abandon us 8 with an inadequate solution. Their people who are 9 answering the phones are already telling us it's a 10 done deal. Don't let it be. 11 [Applause] 12 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. Thank you. I'm 13 going to keep pressing through. Is Eric Palatnik 14 here or no? Zabar? Okay. And after that is 15 Danielle--Daniel Gonzalez? No. Judy Corcoran? 16 Larry Mattiason? 17 MS. CAROL ZABAR: Hi. My name is Carol 18 Zabar. I am a resident of Seaview Fire Island for 19 the last 35 years. Frankly, I don't know why we're 20 having this conversation because I don't understand 21 why the Public Service Commission gave Verizon the 22 authority to not fix our lines. A public utility is 23 mandated to service customers. It's not optional. 24 Some years you make a lot, some years you don't make 25 so much, but you can't say "Oh, we're really not Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 96 1 going to do it because we're not making enough." 2 It's just not an option. Because you're a monopoly, 3 because you are a public utility, that's not 4 something you can say. 5 And why the Public Service Commission gave 6 Verizon the right to not fix the telephones out here 7 while their application was pending is something I 8 just don't understand. Whether or not it costs a lot 9 or it costs a little is really immaterial. If they 10 have a grievance that they're not making any money, 11 they're going to go out of business--it doesn't seem 12 so likely--they can ask the federal government for 13 relief and they have a lot of other options, but they 14 can't ask you, the Public Service Commission, to 15 relieve them of their obligation to provide service. 16 Service, I don't have a line at all. They 17 can't say "Well, you know what? We have this Voice 18 Link and it really doesn't do all the things that the 19 copper wire did, but it's good enough." They can't 20 say that. They simply don't have that option. Why 21 the Public Service Commission gave them the right to 22 go ahead and not fix the copper wire is something I 23 just don't understand. They're mandated to give us 24 service. They can't say "Oh, we can't do that. It's 25 just too expensive." So you've all heard what Voice Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 97 1 Link is about but to me it begs the question why was 2 the Public Service Commission so ready to say "Oh, 3 you're right. You're not making enough money. It's 4 too expensive." 5 You don't have to be a rocket scientist to 6 understand that Fire Island is the thin end of the 7 wedge. We are not that many people. We're here just 8 mainly during the summer months, but around the 9 country there are many, many other places that are 10 far away that are inconvenient for Verizon. And if 11 they can get away with not servicing their customers, 12 they're certainly going to get away with it. Please 13 deny their application which frankly I don't 14 understand why you took at all. Thank you. 15 [Applause] 16 MR. LARRY MATTIASON: My name is Larry 17 Mattiason. I have been a year-round resident here on 18 Fire Island since I was 13. At one point I was an 19 electrical contractor. I've been the chief of the 20 Ocean Bay Park Fire Department. Currently I'm an 21 assistant chief. I've done many things. I'm very 22 aware of all the infrastructure here on Fire Island. 23 I'm very aware of a lot of the infrastructure of the 24 phone company. I have--on occasions when they've 25 sent crews to make repairs in previous years that are Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 98 1 not fiddling with the island I've had a call from 2 Verizon, "I don't know who you are. You don't know 3 me, but the crew told me I should call you because 4 there's a crew out there who can't find their 5 underground cable and you know where it is." Okay? 6 That's where I stand on knowing the intricacies of 7 their system. 8 Now, the community of Seaview and Ocean Bay 9 Park, they're fed by mostly overhead aerial telephone 10 lines. The only section that feeds 100% of Seaview, 11 part of Ocean Beach, and a third of Ocean Bay Park, 12 is the underground section that goes from the central 13 office straight up to Midway, the center road here in 14 Ocean Beach. It goes overhead, splits into two 15 aerial lines, and feeds every customer, all overhead. 16 Now, Verizon said that they would maintain those 17 aerial lines. It's every line that goes into the 18 central office does go underground because they have 19 no aerial connections. So that's a short hop, a 20 short cable, but if that's the only section for all 21 of those customers why can't they fix that? And that 22 goes on. Ocean Beach has even shorter lines. They 23 have major aerial cables feeding the vast majority, 24 yet people are not given the service. Okay? 25 Down at the west end of Fire Island there Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 99 1 were these posters put all around town, "Get rid of 2 Verizon on and off the island." Verizon employees 3 were told to take those down. Okay? 4 FEMALE VOICE: They stopped - - . 5 MR. MATTIASON: Yes, they-- 6 FEMALE VOICE: - - . 7 MR. MATTIASON: Okay. Now, I keep hearing 8 about copper line, dial tone. The Communications Act 9 of 1934, I didn't see dial tone mentioned in there. 10 I did a lot of--I didn't read the whole thing. It's 11 a lot of paperwork and I--you know, we're still 12 recovering from Sandy. I don't have that much time. 13 I did see mention of service, service, service. No 14 dial tone, no copper line. One part of it in there 15 is "No carriers shall discontinue, reduce, or impair 16 service to community or part of a community 17 unless/until there is such," very poorly worded, 18 "shall first have been obtained from the Commission a 19 certificate that neither the present or future public 20 convenience and necessity will be adversely affected 21 thereby," and then it goes on. Okay? 22 This is--you know, it's supposed to be that 23 the service is guaranteed by the federal government 24 and subsidized by the universal service fund. 25 Obviously that's not the case. I have an aerial map Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 100 1 showing all of the aerial lines that feed Seaview and 2 Ocean Beach. You can go around to all the 3 connections. What's not on here are the connections 4 that go to individual houses. I mean there are some 5 sections where you see a block but individual lines 6 just go down the poles. They're not on this. This 7 is just the main--the main trunk lines. Okay? 8 Now, the reason I was bringing up the act of 9 1934 and service, dial tone wasn't mentioned. Now, 10 back in the '20's the news wire service was using a 11 multiplex system to transmit news back and forth. 12 Now, most people don't think of that as being a modem 13 but the workings of it was a modem. It worked over 14 the phone lines in the '20's and that's the same 15 system we have now. It still works. It's the same 16 system that DSL goes over. So the service provided 17 was capable from before the enactment of the 18 regulation and it's--that should be included in what 19 they have to preserve. It's service that was 20 available and denying is right here. It's written it 21 shouldn't be. 22 As far as Verizon misleading customers, I 23 could give you a whole list of examples but you'd 24 have to rent a room tonight, so I'm not going to go 25 into that. On the web, insult to injury, I have here Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 101 1 a printout of their website. They have 2 advertisement. This is a specific site for Fire 3 Island and Voice Link. They have the recovery video. 4 FiOS Won Long Island, see the video. They have 5 advertisements for FiOS. We can't get it. It's 6 ridiculous. It's just an insult. And it goes on and 7 then they advertise--and then they advertise Voice 8 Link. 9 Like I say, Verizon has been extremely 10 misleading, outright lies. The crews trying to 11 repair the lines underground, they're saying "All we 12 need is a 100 foot piece of cable to make this 13 repair. We have a bad section. We can splice it at 14 one end, splice it at the other end, and that bad 15 section would be replaced. They were not given the 16 cable to do that." The most important thing for 17 preserving the underground cables are the--is air 18 pressure inside the jacket. All of these ditches 19 that were open, the cables exposed, the jackets cut, 20 they could not maintain air pressure. When Fire 21 Island Pines had problems with their underground feed 22 which eventually they tied into the existing fiber 23 optic, they put in overheard air lines to subsidize 24 the air supply. Those have been cut loose and 25 disconnected. So water--it's making it so water can Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 102 1 get in. 2 Even though all of that stuff has been done, 3 the splice crews have said, "We have 80 to 90% of the 4 pairs repairs to feed Ocean Bay Park." There is 5 three sections where Ocean Bay Park is tapped into 6 the underground cable, but that cable is not 7 functioning. It works, it can work, but they're not 8 letting it happen. 9 I'm cutting--I'm going a little out of order 10 because a lot of this stuff was touched on and I 11 don't want to keep repeating. Hold on. Okay. So 12 basically Verizon is using Fire Island to set the 13 precedent for Voice Link. The other night I'm 14 watching a national news show about a customer on the 15 upper east side. He called up, you know, the news 16 station. You know, Verizon has not fixed my phone 17 for a month. So the news people get there and find 18 out, you know, they came, they repaired one line. He 19 has a main line and a fax line. Well, they offered 20 him Voice Link for his fax line. You know, I don't 21 see the logic in that. And this is--this is in 22 Manhattan. They're trying to sneak Voice Link 23 anywhere they can and once you get it they're not 24 letting you switch back. It's not right. 25 It's not fair, and the problems are self- Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 103 1 caused. If you can--if you can get the people who 2 work on the lines, the splice crews, who were afraid 3 of their retirement, if you can--I mean if you could 4 subpoena them to testify and protect them, you would 5 find out a lot of information and how Verizon has 6 been very deceitful and outright lying. 7 [Applause] 8 MR. MATTIASON: Thank you. 9 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. Again, I'll just 10 give you a quick time check. We're almost--it's 11 3:26. I have six more cards, so I'll see. Edward 12 Greenfield? No? Susan Slesinger? Okay. And what 13 about Ronnie Ilovitch [phonetic]? Elvitch 14 [phonetic]? Okay. Kurt Stall [phonetic]? Dawn 15 Lupert [phonetic], Lippert? Dawn Lippert? Jim Hoey? 16 I hope I'm saying that right. It's H-O-E-Y. And 17 Elizabeth Hubby? Okay. 18 MS. SUSAN SLESINGER: My name is Susan 19 Slesinger. I am a 23--sorry, 23-year summer resident 20 of Fair Harbor. I have no service whatsoever because 21 I have--I don't have any cell service where I am, 22 nothing. So I got Voice Link and last week we had a 23 really exciting week. All my smoke alarms went off 24 at once at night, at about 10:00 at night. And the-- 25 my husband was there. I was in New York. And he Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 104 1 tried to use the Voice Link and it wouldn't go 2 through. He dialed 911. Nothing went through. 3 He then called--ran outside and ran way up 4 the street because we have no cell service, no 5 Verizon wireless service, nothing, nothing. And he 6 had to go up the street and he actually called me to 7 go, "Okay, what do I do," because he's my husband. 8 And I'm like "Okay, send my 11-year-old on his 9 bicycle to the fire station." Now, where does that 10 put us? That's how we have to--you know, send 11 someone to the fire station who then they called an 12 alarm and they came and it was really nothing. 13 But two days prior to that my 11-year-old 14 fell off his bicycle, slammed his head against the 15 walk, cut himself several places. And of course my 16 husband called me in the city, and we spoke for about 17 ten seconds and Voice Link cut out. We had seven 18 calls. I could not call them. They couldn't hear-- 19 the phone wouldn't ring. I had four calls where I 20 say "Hello? Hello? Hello?" No one was there. And 21 I could see that the house was calling me, was there. 22 He had to run up the street, leave my son 23 hysterically crying, go all the way up the walk till 24 he had service to call me to say "Okay, you know, I 25 think he's okay." But, you know, this is ridiculous. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 105 1 If there--how many people--like is someone going to 2 die? Is a child going to be killed, really, before 3 you guys decide that Verizon shouldn't be able to do 4 whatever they want and that we should actually have 5 service? 6 I mean Voice Link does not work. I asked 7 them to come and remove it because I don't want to 8 pay for something that's not--I mean I can't call it. 9 They cannot receive a phone call and you can't talk 10 for more than 10 or 20 seconds on the phone in my 11 house. So I have zero communication. 12 And I actually have another experience with 13 Voice Link. I have Verizon service in Manhattan on 14 my landline in my business, a business phone. And I 15 didn't have service for a month and a half. They 16 said a cable went out and until I called the Utility 17 Commission and filed a complaint, three complaints, I 18 finally got a phone call and they--she said--Verizon, 19 she said, "Oh, that cable should take two weeks at 20 the most to fix." But they did come and they gave me 21 Voice Link and it crapped out in two days. Okay? It 22 just stopped working. And I have--there's plenty of, 23 you know, internet there, you know, Verizon phones 24 work there easily, and it just stopped working. 25 So if there is an emergency in my house Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 106 1 someone is going to die. Someone is going to be 2 really hurt, or I have to send someone. I have to 3 run to the fire station. I mean what year really 4 does that put us back to? You know, I don't know. 5 So I can't--I think it's egregious that they were 6 allowed to do this and to offer this, and in your 7 conscience if you do this you will have blood on your 8 hands. 9 [Applause] 10 MS. SLESINGER: And I'm paying a babysitter 11 to be here all day. 12 MS. DAWN LIPPERT: Thank you. My name is 13 Dawn Lippert. I've been a 25-year year-round 14 resident. So I'm here in the off season. I've 15 written an email to the Public Service Commission 16 stating my concerns for EMS, fire, the school issues. 17 To be in compliance with the SEC we have to have, you 18 know, ability to--for the children to take their 19 tests online, but I covered all that in my email. 20 But what has come really to a concern is the 21 basic bottom line that Verizon wants to make a 22 profit, and by kicking it over to Verizon Wireless, 23 from what I understand, is a different company, 24 they're not under the, you know, obligations that 25 they had gotten being state of last resort giving us Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 107 1 landline. All Verizon can do is give us landline. 2 They don't have the wireless capabilities, which 3 means they'll have to subcontract it out to Verizon 4 Wireless. My concern is if you, you know, give them, 5 you know, what they're appealing for, they'll just 6 drop kick to Verizon Wireless and that's it. We'll 7 never get a landline again. And so--and which takes 8 them out of the regulatory obligations that they have 9 since, you know, wireless is not regulated. And my 10 concern, would we have recourse if we start having 11 problems with them. You know, do we have the appeals 12 of the Public Service Commission? 13 So I am just basically wanting to add to my 14 email concerns, which is all the safety with the 15 previous person. That would be horrible if a child 16 is hurt and she cannot get EMS services, a house 17 burns down because their monitoring system didn't 18 work, you know, someone dies because their, you know, 19 defibrillator information can't go through. And, you 20 know, school stuff, you know, but that's minimal 21 compared to the ability to have the fire and safety 22 and EMS ability established. 23 And, quite frankly, letting Verizon getting- 24 -get out of what they--you know, they wanted New 25 York. They get the good with the bad. Fire Island Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 108 1 is going to cost them money and they should just buck 2 up and do it, and not get out of their obligation by 3 drop kicking it to Verizon Wireless, which is another 4 company, and that's the only way you get Voice Link. 5 Fortunately, I don't have to have it so far because, 6 knock on wood, but I guess if they get what they're 7 asking for I won't have a choice. They'll just take- 8 -they'll just cut the whole landline system because 9 if they're not obligated to service it they won't 10 have to. So I please, please, please don't give them 11 what they want, their, you know, ability to get rid 12 of us. Thank you. 13 [Applause] 14 ALJ PHILLIPS: Okay. I just want to double 15 check again. The last two cards were Jim Hoey and 16 Elizabeth Hubby. 17 MS. ELIZABETH HUBBY: I'm here. 18 ALJ PHILLIPS: Oh, okay. 19 MS. HUBBY: Hi. I'm Elizabeth Hubby and I 20 am a summer person and an EMT spouse, but I actually 21 come by my suspicions of the phone company honestly. 22 My father basically originated enhanced 911, and he 23 told me about some ways in which the whole 911 system 24 should have greater scrutiny in terms of what 25 corporations can get away with. Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 109 1 I'm actually quite happy that I was 2 profitable for Verizon this year. I paid for my 3 phone service all winter long and that meant that I 4 didn't have to call Verizon and say "Please turn it 5 on," and that's why I'm the only person I know who 6 has DSL and has a working phone line. And so the 7 reason I'm here basically, genetics, and because I 8 feel that Verizon misrepresented, as you've heard, 9 but I have my own take on it. Misrepresented how far 10 gone the system was. 11 I think there's been no effort whatsoever to 12 explain why my service had no problems and my 13 neighbors were all unable even to try to see if their 14 system would work. One had reported last week that 15 she had been denied the chance to try it. After her 16 name and number were put in, Verizon called her last 17 week and said, "So, you weren't able to try your DSL. 18 You weren't able to try your landline, but you've got 19 Voice Link now so we can't try it anymore." So it's 20 that fraud of saying the system was wiped out that I 21 am most offended by, and I hope that basically we can 22 count on you to protect us. 23 A profit seeking corporation doesn't really 24 care if you walk through the streets of Ocean Beach 25 and you see a lot fewer people. People can't rent Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 110 1 their houses because they don't have internet to 2 provide. And we know we're going to go underwater in 3 another 100 years but we'd really rather not lose our 4 communities now. Thank you. 5 [Applause] 6 ALJ PHILLIPS: I just want to check. Are 7 there any other cards, Jill? Okay. Is there anyone 8 who didn't fill out a card who wants to, who would 9 like to, whose-- 10 MALE VOICE: - - . 11 ALJ PHILLIPS: Yes, yes. I just want to say 12 thank you so much for coming out. Oh, sorry. I'm 13 sorry. 14 MS. ALIX BICKSON: It's okay. 15 ALJ PHILLIPS: What is your name? 16 MS. BICKSON: My name is Alix Bickson and my 17 family and I, we've been residents of Dunewood since 18 I was born. 19 ALJ PHILLIPS: Okay. You didn't fill out a 20 card though, right? 21 MS. BICKSON: No, I didn't. Am I still 22 allowed to speak? 23 ALJ PHILLIPS: Can you just spell your name? 24 Because we need to get it. 25 MS. BICKSON: Sure. A-L-I-X B-I-C-K-S-O-N, Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 111 1 Alix Bickson. I just wanted to state that the women 2 before me said that she paid for a DSL throughout the 3 winter and it still worked for her afterwards. My 4 family paid for our DSL throughout the winter and 5 that was not the case for us and that was not the 6 case for many others as well. 7 Just on a little note, I'm 21. I go to 8 Middlebury College and there is a lot of people and a 9 lot of discourse now that corporations run the world 10 and that there's nothing that can be done to stop 11 them, and that they can do whatever they want. And I 12 know that this is a small case and this is a small 13 island and we're a small group of people, but please 14 help us to prove that that's not the case, so that 15 corporations can't try and do this to other people 16 throughout the country as well. Thanks. 17 [Applause] 18 ALJ PHILLIPS: Thank you. Is there anyone 19 else who hasn't-- 20 [Inaudible conversations] 21 ALJ PHILLIPS: Okay. Let--I'm sorry, 22 before we--before we do this, because you're voices 23 are not going to be captured unless you're on the 24 microphone. I just want to close out the hearing but 25 we'll stay here and talk to you for as long as you Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 112 1 need us to. Let me just finish. So I did want to 2 say thank you because I know some of you have been 3 here for the whole thing like me. Thank you so much 4 for coming out. We really do want to get your input. 5 This is helpful to us and I know it's very hard to be 6 inside on a day like today. So thank you for your 7 input and your comments. 8 Again, if you need to add to your comments, 9 if you want to provide additional information, there 10 are numerous ways that you can still do that. We ask 11 that you do that by I believe it's September 13th, so 12 that we'll have time to analyze your comments and 13 make sure that they're reflected. 14 As far as the schedule, my only 15 understanding is that there is a further report that 16 will be due, and then I don't think there has been a 17 date established for a decision because that will 18 have to be reviewed and I think as the staff 19 indicated earlier they're still doing their 20 investigation as well. So it's all on DMM. If you 21 go and type--I'm sorry, our Document Management 22 Matter system. If you go in and type the case number 23 you should be able to follow everything as it happens 24 because it will be on that public website. 25 So again thank you so much. We are formally Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 PROCEEDINGS 113 1 adjourned and off the record. Thank you. 2 [Applause] 3 [END OF HEARING] Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 114 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Brandi Dean, certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings in the New York State Department of Public Service, Case 13-C-0197 - Public Statement Hearing Verizon New York, was prepared using the required transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of the proceedings. Signature: Date: August 26, 2013 Ubiqus/Nation-Wide Reporting & Convention Coverage 22 Cortlandt Street – Suite 802, New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-7440 * 800-221-7242 * Fax: 212-227-7524 EXHIBIT L Office of the People's Counsel District of Columbia I I 33 15th Street, NW • Suite 500 • Washington, DC 20005-27 10 *** 202.727.3071 • FAX 202.727 .10 14 • TTY/TOD 202.727 .2876 - Sandra Mattavous-Frye, Esq. People', Counsel August 26, 20 I 1 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Mr. Jesse P. Clay, Jr. Acting Commission Secretary Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia 1333 H Street, N .W., 7th Floor East Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: In the Matter of the Petition of the Office of the People' s Counsel for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia Dear Mr. Clay: Enclosed for filing are an original and three (3) copies of "Petition of the Office of the People's Counsel for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia" in the above referenced proceedings. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (202) 727 3071. r ur L. Brown 'sistant People's Counsel Enclosure [email protected] • www.opc-dc.gov BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 1\ In the Matter of ~ § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. _ _ _ Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability of Verizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § PETITION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Pursuantto D.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-204.93, 34-808,34-903, and 34-908, and Rule 10 1.1, Rule 101.2, and Rule lOlA of the Public Service Commission's ("Commission" or "PSC") Rules of Practice and Procedure, I the Office of the People's Counsel of the District ofColumbia ("Office" or "OPC") respectfully petitions the Commission under its plenary authority over Verizon Washington, DC Inc. ("Verizon" or "the Company") to initiate and conduct a formal investigation into the reliability of Verizon's existing telecommunications infrastructure and the quality of Verizon's telephone service in the District of Columbia. The Office petitions the Commission for a formal investigation as the statutory legal representative of the District's utility consumers and ratepayers using products and services provided by public utilities under the jurisdiction of the Commission.2 15 D.C.M.R. §§ 101.1, ]01.2, and 101.4 (2008). 2 D.C. Code § 34-804 (d) (2009). I. SUMMARY OF ope's REQUEST All public utilities operating in the District of Columbia are required to provide safe, adequate and reliable service.] The Office has been contacted by ratepayers and consumers throughout the city regarding recurring service outages and interference on their telephone lines, essentially complaining about the reliability of Verizon's existing telecommunications infrastructure in the District of Columbia. These affected District ratepayers and consumers seek investigation and resolution of these matters, including a determination of the actual causes of the telephone service outages and poor quality of telecommunications services; Verizon's failure or refusal to repair or upgrade its infrastructure; and fair compensation and remedies for the damages they have suffered. The affected ratepayers and consumers continue to express dissatisfaction with Verizon's service reliability and are seeking answers to why they continue to experience and receive poor quality telecommunications services. The Office requests the initiation of a formal investigation into the causes and resolution of the matter of these telephone service outages and poor quality telecommunications services experienced in the District of Columbia. The Office further requests that the Commission use the full breadth of its statutory plenary authorit/ and responsibility to ensure the formal proceeding include an investigation of: (I) the causes of the telephone service outages, (2) the condition of the system infrastructure in the affected areas, (3) the corrective action necessary to enable the provision of safe and reliable service in the District, (4) Verizon' s efforts to resolve these problems, (5) 3 See, D.C. Code § 34-1 101(a). 4 See, D.C. Cuue § 1-204.93 (2010) 2 whether Verizon is deliberately failing or refusing to adequately repair or upgrade infrastructure or service, (6) Verizon's efforts to compensate District ratepayers and consumers for losses sustained, and (7) whether Verizon has sufficient manpower to address the problem. II. JURISDICTION A. Office of the People's Counsel The Petitioner is the People's Counsel, acting under the Office's authority to represent District of Columbia consumers before the Commission involving the interests of users of the products and services furnished by public utilities under the jurisdiction of this Commission.s The Office also has the authority to represent and appear for petitioners before the Commission for the purpose of complaining in the matters of rates or service.6 Further, the Office may investigate independently, or within the context of formal proceedings before the Commission, the services given by, the rates charged by, and the valuation of the properties of the public utilities under the jurisdiction of the Commission.7 The Office has the right to obtain from the public utility all information and documents reasonably relevant to its investigation. Ifa public utility refuses or fails to produce the requested information in a timely manner, the Office may, by motion, petition the Commission to issue an order compelling its production.8 5 D.C. Code § 34-804 (d)(J). 6 D.C. Code § 34-804 (d)(3). 7 D.C. Code § 34-804 (d)(4). 8 D.C. Code § 34-J 118(c) 3 Public Service Commission Commission the obligation to ensure public doing business within the District Columbia and facilities that are reasonably and just the must ensure any or furnished, or rendered, or to be or rendered, be reasonable, just, and · .. 10 non dlscnmmatory. Commission the authority, upon a complaint made public utility, to public utility if its or time and of payment are any respect or unjustly discriminatory or that any IS inadequate or cannot has authority to inquire into any or violation force the District Columbia by public utility. I The Commission in other matters the of Columbia consumers. IJ C. Verizon Verizon is subject to jurisdiction the as it is a public utility a corporation the of District Columbia by D.C. Code § J-204.93. 10 Id. II D.C. Code D.C. Code 13 See, Formal Case No. 1071, In the Maller Power Order No. 15567 reI. October I 2009; Formal Case No.1 062, In the Matter Electric Power Outage in Ihe Dis/riCI on June 13. 2008, Order No. 16432 reI. July 8, 201 J. 4 to do business in the District of Columbia. 14 III. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC CONCERN OPC's petition is in response to a series of communications about the experience District ratepayers and consumers are having with recurring telephone service outages, poor quality telecommunications service, and Verizon's failure or refusal to address these problems associated with its landline service provided over its copper infrastructure. Specifically, ope has been contacted by District residents and staff of District of Columbia Councilmembers representing residents of Wards 4 and 6 and other areas of the District relaying consumer complaints about problems with their telephone service in the District ofColumbia. See Consumer Affidavits attached as Exhibit I. The Office respectfully reserves the right to supplement this Petition with additional consumer affidavits. Indeed, Councilmember Phil Mendelson (At Large) has voiced concern about the reliability of Verizon service, specifically, widespread outages in the Adams Morgan area of the District. See Councilmember Mendelson's August 25,2011 email attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, consumers are expressing their frustration through social media, including neighborhood listservs. See Exhibit 2. Essentially, District consumers complain as follows: (I) in many cases there is always noise or a hum on the line or the line is totally inoperable; (2) that there are other calls on the line; (3) that Verizon has acknowledged that repairs, replacements or upgrades need to be made to its copper infrastructure, but has failed to make them; (4) that there are constant telephone service outages, especially when it rains or during other inclement weather. The complainants also state that some of 14 D.C. Code § 34-214. 5 these problems have gone unchecked for several years. IV. SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED Rule 101.2 authorizes the Commission, upon the petition of any person, to order a formal investigation. IS OPC respectfully petitions the Commission for the initiation of a formal investigation into the causes and resolution ofthe matter of these telephone service outages and poor quality telecommunications services experienced in the District of Columbia. The Office further requests that the Commission use the full breadth of its statutory plenary authority and responsibility to ensure the formal proceeding include: (l) an investigation of the causes of the telephone service outages, (2) the condition of the system infrastructure in the affected areas, (3) the corrective action necessary to enable the provision of safe and reliable service in the District, (4) Verizon' s efforts to resolve these problems, (5) whether Verizon is deliberately failing or refusing to adequately repair or upgrade its copper infrastructure, and (6) Verizon's efforts to compensate District ratepayers and consumers for losses sustained. V. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED OPC, as the statutory legal representative of District ratepayers and consumers, must take appropriate steps to protect the interests of District ratepayers and consumers to ensure they receive safe, adequate and reliable telephone service as required by law. J6 To that end, there should be a formal Commission investigation to determine the causes and appropriate resolution of all issues regarding the telephone service outages and poor quality telecommunications services to ensure 15 15 D.C.M.R § 101.2 (2009). 16 See, D.C. Code § 34-804 (2009). 6 satisfactory and timely resolution of this matter. The Commission has express authority to investigate and resolve these issues. 17 The Commission further has the authority to direct Verizon to make repairs, improvements, changes, replacements, or additions to service or equipment within a reasonable time if it determines that repairs, improvements or changes in any telephone plant equipment anc\Jor services should be made in order to promote the comfort or convenience of the public or employees, or in order to secure adequate service or facilities. VI. REQUEST FOR FORMAL HEARING D.C. Code § 34-908, D.C. Code § 34-914 and D.C. Code § 34-915 require the Commission to hold a formal hearing before issuing an order affecting the complained upon rate, regulation, act or making a final determination as to whether Verizon is fulfilling its legal obligation to provide safe, adequate and reliable service in the District. VII. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, OPC respectfully requests the PSC grant this petition and conduct a full and complete investigation into the quality and reliability of Verizon's telecommunications service and underlying copper network infrastructure in the District of Columbia. 17 D.C. Code §§ 34-908 and 34-914 (2009) 7 Respectfully submitted, ~~~~People's Counsel D.C. Bar No. 375833 Karen R. Sistrunk, Esq. Associate People's Counsel D.C. Bar No. 390153 Laurence C. Daniels, Esq. Assistant People's Counsel D.C. Bar No. 471025 Arthur L. Brown, Esq. Assistant People's Counsel D.C. Bar No. Pending OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE' S COUNSEL 1133 15th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 727-3071 Dated: August 26, 20 II 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of the Petition of the Office of the People's Counsel for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia I hereby certify that on this 26th day of August, 2011, a copy of the "Petition of the Office of the People's Counsel for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia" was served on the following parties of record by hand delivery, first class mail, postage prepaid, or electronic maiJ: Honorable Betty Ann Kane J. Henry Ambrose Chairman Vice President State Public Policy Maryland & Public Service Commission of the Washington DC District of Columbia 1300 I Street, N.W. 1333 H Street, N.W., i h Floor East Suite 400 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] [email protected] Honorable Richard E. Morgan Phylicia Fauntleroy Bowman Commissioner Executive Director Public Service Commission of the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia District of Columbia 1333 H Street, N.W., i h Floor East 1333 H Street, N.W., 6th Floor East Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20005 rmorgan @psc.dc.gov [email protected] Honorable Lori Murphy Lee Commissioner Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia 1333 H Street, N.W., i h Floor East Washington, D.C. 20005 ,Ar;hur L. Brown [email protected] Wssistant People's Counsel Richard Beverly, Esq. General Counsel Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia 1333 H Street, N.W., 71h Floor East Washington, D.C. 20005 rbevcrly@p. c.dc.gov William Roberts President, Verizon - DC 1300 I Street, NW Suite 400 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Attachment 1 From: Mendelson, Phil (COUNCIL) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 25,2011 10:18 AM To: Herbert Jones Subject: Verizon outage in Adams Morgan going on 10 days This is a quick cut and paste of postings I have found on the Adams Morgan Listserv. Thanks for helping. Verizon outage Posted by: "nitestarr17" elham [email protected] nitestarr17 Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:59 am (PDT) Now that we have our electricity back, our phone line is dead. Verizon has workers on strike and is slow to respond--apparently sending their workers out to the neighborhood on Thursday ... the soonest they can get out here: Our home is on Lanier Pl. Not sure how widespread the outage is, but if your phone doesn't work, please call the Verizon area manager at 202-755-0549. /. ~amLipton Re: Verizon outage Posted by: "lancefromdc" [email protected] lancefromdc Wed Aug 17,20116:33 am (PDT) They might be blaming it on the strike now, but their response time has been incredibly bad now for many years on going. My mom had a similar problem with her phone line going out and they'd take a week or two to get out to her house and she'd have to do without phone service in the meantime. She got fed up with it and changed to another carrier who responds immediately. I had an issue with my Internet connection with them earlier this year and it took over 2 months to resolve as they kept steering me through their helpdesk in India which require my re-explaining the problem each time (intermittant connectivity), their running a test from that end and then they're telling me that the problem had been fixed. I got 'lucky' on about my 12th call into them in that I reached someone in India who finally agreed to schedule a service call to my house. Once they actually came out in person it was a simple fix ... One that in years past would havc been done the day after you called to report it in. If they treat their workers half as bad as they treat their customers, I can easily understand why they are facing a strike now. Lance Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Reply to group I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 3b. Verizon outage Posted by: "[email protected]" elizabeth(a~ innercity.org mailinnercity Wed Aug 17,2011 5:27 pm (PDT) 1640 Columbia Rd is out too How about a roll call of who is wi thout phone service. Misery loves company and knowledge is power. Elizabeth Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Reply to group I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 3c. Re: Verizon outage Posted by: "Mindy Moretti" [email protected] mindymoretti Wed Aug 17,2011 7:43 pm (PDT) It could be out as long as till 9pm Saturday night according to Verizon, which I was able to call from the cell. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Rt:RLy~QldP-' Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) Land Line Phones Posted by: "[email protected]" [email protected] Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:48 am (PDT) So, has anyone heard if Verizon intends to fix the phones? Thanks. Carol Davis Lanier Place 2 Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender IRep}y to grO\,l Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 7b. Re: Land Line Phones Posted by: "Mindy Moretti" [email protected] mindymoretti Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:52 am (PDT) When I called on the 17th, they said should be fixed by 9pm Saturday night. The phone support person did caution though that because thousands ofVerizon workers are on strike right now, it could be longer. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Repl v to group I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 7c. Re: Land Line Phones Posted by: "B A" [email protected] twcdcorp Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:07 pm (PDT) I saw some trucks on euclid street for 2 days but didn't have a chance to ask why.sorry! Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I RejJJy to grouR I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 7d. Re: Land Line Phones Posted by: "nitestarr17" elham [email protected] nitestarr17 Fri Aug 19,2011 6:56 pm (PDT) I was told the problem should be fixed by Saturday or before. Everyone should make sure they review their bill carefully and request credit for the days you had no phone service. -Elham Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Reply. to grOLIp [ Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 8a. Re: Verizon outage Posted by: "Maureen J. Carroll" mjcarrolll @verizon.net countrydirector1991 Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:59 am (PDT) Good news re Adams Mill Rd ... my house in 2700 block of Ontario is still out. Internet went out yesterday but has come back on, albeit with occasional failures. I hope Verizon's word re a Saturday fix holds up. Do we know if this outage is connected to reported sabotages by strikers? 3 Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I &n.lLto groul2- l Reply via web post Messages in this topic (6) Verizon Outage update Posted by: "Mindy Moretti" [email protected] mindymoretti Sun Aug 21,2011 12:12 pm (PDT) Just called Verizon to get an update about the outage and apparently thcrc are 104 us here in Adams Morgan without landline service. The representative that I spoke with said that therc is no indication on the work order when service will be restored (they had initially said 9pm last night). He did joke that it will most likely be fixed sometime after Tuesday (when the striking workers go back to work). Anyway, for the 103 other households in the neighborhood without landline service, that's where we stand. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Reply to group I Reply via web post Re: Verizon Outage update Posted by: "peter 1yden" [email protected] Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:22 am (PDT) My phone service is out too. Yesterday morning there were Verizon workmen on Ontario Rd between Euclid & Columbia Rd. I asked them if they were working on the phone voice problem and they said yes. They said there was a cable problem on that block and they were not sure when they would have the service restored. But, there was a crew of 4 working on it. I still have my internet access, which I thought was strange to lose the voice but not the digital. They said the nature of the problem affected the analog voice signals, but not the digital DSL. Peter Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Reply to group I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 4 lao I. Land Lines Posted by: "[email protected]" Car2Dav@aoLcom Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:33 am (PDT) Anyone have a magic number that we all can call about the Li nd lines - which people did need yesterday during the earthquake. Disrupted phone service is now entering its 8th day. Carol Davis Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender I Rep! y to group I Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 1b . Re: Land Lines Posted by: "elhamlipton" [email protected] elhamlipton Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:29 pm (PDT) If you are a twitter user, try addressing a message to @VerizonSupport. Ironically, they are responsive that way. I suppose if they were the subject of enough negative tweets, they WOll Id be forced to respond more quickly. Companies hate bad PR o Elham Lipton Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Reply to sender IRg1l y to groLl 12..1 Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of its intended recipient(s) and might contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this electronic communication (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it (including any attachments) from your system without copying or forwarding it , and notify the sender of the error by reply e-mail. 5 Attachment 2 BEFORE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC COMMISSION In the of § Sf\ Petition of the Office of the People's § Case No ...... _~ "-'''''...... ,''''. for an Investigation into the § Reliability of Verizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVIT OF COMMISSIONER SCOTT ANC 1D06 IN SUPPORT OF THE OF THE COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR AN Il\VESTIGA TION Il\TO RELIABILITY OF VERIZON'S 1. I, Commissioner Scott, ANC I state under as follows: I reside at 1 NW, Apt. 609, Washington, DC 20009 in Ward l. 3. of the s Counsel the Telecommunications Infrastructure customer. I have lived at has been lots of with our 5. We when it faulty again which we then return to do more only to be building are: cllstomers are within a two which they do not a working phone. Almost resident in this building high bills that were never authorized As citizens the that Verizon provide people is not even close to Commissioner AngeJia Scott ANC 1006 Date Subscribed and sworn before me this~-#day of ~~, 201 J. , . Jean M. Gross-Bethel Notary Public. Distr1ct of CO~I .'7A A:5 My Commission Expires 3.0 -~ U 1. BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. - - Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability of Verizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDA VIT OF JOSHUA GRAY IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. I, Joshua Gray, reside at 2424 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 in Ward 6. 2. I fully support the Office of the People's Counsel Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia. 3. I am a Verizon landline phone service customer. I have experienced constant quality of service problems with Verizon for over five years. Verizon technicians have visited my residence on at least 14 occasions from 2006 to 2009. Furthermore, on November 6, 2009, Verizon sent letters to the residents of the 2400 block of 2nd Street, NE, apologizing for the poor quality of phone service. A copy of the November 6, 2009 letter is attached. 4. Specifically, I have experienced frequent phone service outages when it rains or during other inclement weather. I also have experienced persistent static interference on the line and other phone service interruptions, independent of the weather. ~J. V~Joshua G-ra-y------7"t? Date Subscribed and sworn before me thi s~day of ~ , 2011. Jean M. Gross·B4:tthel Notary Public, District of colunlbtl My Commission Expires .3 -~/'2015 Bs)' 0'8/ 2B1 B 19: 11 2B25213956 PFEIFFERS PAGE 01 r ' ' " '1- >;. -- - .. ._------ Joshua Gray 2424 2nd St., NE Washington, DC 20002 202-361-6906 (cell) June 8,2010 ATTN: Laurence Jones Office of People's Counsel Mr, Jones: Please find attached a copy of Verizon's letter referencing my ongoing difficulty with local telephone service. Thank you in advance for your efforts. Joshua Gray [ Received Jun-OB-2010 18:58 0"''''''0 nn1 ( .) 0~/08/2010 1 '3: 11 2025213'355 PFEIFFERS PAGE 1212 t - >... 13101 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 November 6, 2009 To: The residents of2400-2438 2nd St NE, Washington, DC Re: Replacing Verizon facilities at 2400-2438 2nd St NE Dear Resident~ Verizon regrets the quality oftelephone service it has rendered in the past. We are working to l"esolve tbis issue. Unfortunately replacing our facilities is not as easy as it would appear. Our easement requires us to take the exact same path as the previously placed Verizon telephone cable. This is currently not possible due to the fact that most residents have built additions enclosing our facilities. Verizon has to determine a new path to replace its facilities. Please contact me so we might discuss the solution to this issue(this is !J!!!. a sales call): Blaise Wagner-Engineering Assistant Verizon Outside Plant Engineering 13101 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 301-282-2495 office 301~282-7973 [email protected] Verizon's greatest priority is to restore quality service to its customers. Received Jun-08-2010 18:58 From-2025213956 To-PEOPLE'S COUNSEL (DC) Pale 002 BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COI,UMBlA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION r In the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. --~ Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability of VerizoD~s . § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVIT OF CAROI,vN HARDEN IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELlABll"ITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMlJNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTIJRE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. I Carolyn Harden reside at 1618 Constitution Avenue. N.E., Apt 1. Washington, DC 20002 in Ward 6. 2. I am a Verizon Landline phone service customer. I have experienced loss of phone service over the past year, regardless of weather conditions. 1 also have experienced persistent static interference on the line and other phone service interruptions, independent ofthe weather. 2:" /1 ·3DVd 19809t7S2:"02:" 3. Verizon technicians have attempted to repair my phone service on several occasions. However, my service invariably fails again. Tn addition, Verizon and I have been in constant dispute regarding the inside wire maintenance plan and its effective date. Verizon's poor quality of service has affected my ability to stay in contact with my family and friends. 4. I fully support the Office of the People's Counsel Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability ofVerizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District of Columbia. Carolyn Harden ~j~l\( Date Subscribed and sworn before me this~__day of,______, 2011. Notary S,~al Notary Public /"C: ·3:8Vd 19809175 "C:O"C: BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. -- Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability ofVerizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES TURNER IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. I Charles Turner reside at 2201 Savannah Street, S.E., Apt 301, Washington, DC 20020 in Ward 8. 2. I was a Verizon Landline phone service customer. I have experienced loss of phone service over the past 3 years, regardless of weather conditions. In many instances, there were unexplained intermitted interruption of services, and persistent static interference on the line and other phone service interruptions, independent of the weather. 3. Verizon technicians have attempted to repair my phone service on several occasions. However, my service invariably fails again. In addition, Verizon and I have been in constant dispute regarding the distinction between suspension of service and disconnection of service, and credit/refund for lack of service. As a senior with medical conditions, Verizon's poor quality of service has affected my ability to stay in contact with my health providers, family and friends. This poses a threat to my health and safety. 4. I fully support the Office of the People's Counsel Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability ofVerizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District ofColumbia. ~~~~/ c ~ · Charles T;St? Date ! > Subscribed and sworn before me this .&s'~y of~~2011. Jean M. Gross-Bethel Notary Public, Olstrfct of Cobnbll My Commission Expires 3-3j -20/5 --- EXHIBIT M BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. - -- CouDsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability of Verizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVIT OF ERNEST L. THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL' PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLU1\ImIA 1. I, Ern st L. Thomas, reside at 1845 Harvard Street, NW, Apt. 927 Washington, DC 20009 in Ward 1. 2. I fuJl y support the Office of the People's Couns I Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District ofColumbia. 3. Tam a Vetizon landhne phone service customer. I have xperienced constant quality of service problems with Verizon for some years now and have experienced loss of service. Verizon technicians have visited my residence at Harvard Tower Apartments and nothing has been done with the quality f ervice. 4. Harvard Tower Apartments hosts a number of people (about 200 or so) with Life Alert systems who desperately need their LAN line telephones at all times, especially in case of an emergency. 5. Verizon charges us for lines that are very old and loosely hanging in the building's maintenance room. Verizon need to come up with a plan as to keep our services on at all times. Ernest L. Thomas Date Subscribed and swom before me this Yof kpL£e/, 20 11. No[wy Seal MardOQueo M. Sanchez Notary Public, District of Columbia My Commission Expires 7/31/2016 EXHIBIT N BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Formal Case No. 1090 Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability of Verizon's § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVIT OF PHYLTSS STEWART-THOMPSON SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABJLITY OF VERIZON'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. I, Phyliss Stewart-Thompson, state under oath as follows: 2. I reside at 438 Luray Place, NW, Washington, DC 20010. 3. I full y support the Office of the People's Counsel Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability ofVerizon's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the District ofColumbia. 4. I am a Verizon landline phone servic customer. Beginning on August 29, 2011 to date, I have been without telephone service. My phone rings and then the calls are imm diately fOfVv'arded to voicemail. 5. Wh n I contacted Verizon to report the outage, I had to wait to speak to a customer service representative for at least an hour. I was told by the call service sup rvisor Paul Serato, that my outage is an "engineering problem" that has to be fixed by an engineer, not a service technician. Mr. Serato also informed me that he has no way of knowing when my phone service will be restored. 6. Verizon has infonn d me that restoral of my phone se ice is complex and will not be completed for several weeks. Verizon fu rther infonned that this w ill result in a pennanent solution. Nonethele s, I have no confidence that Verizon will restore my service within 30 days and remain concerned about my service fai ling again. Dat Subscribed alld sworn before me , 201 1. No tary Seal Notary Public LETA l. HOLLEY D. C. NOTAkY PtJ;..L!C 999 E STREET, N.V'i RO OM BOr WASHING , {I N, D.C. 20403 0{ COMrv1l 31::iiON EXi';iRf:S 4/14/2013 EXHIBIT O BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -.: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION III the Matter of § § The Petition of the Office of the People's § Fo."mal Case No. - -- Counsel for an Investigation into the § Reliability ofVerizon' s § Telecommunications Infrastructure § in the District of Columbia § AFFIDAVlT OF MARTHA THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S COUN EL'S PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELIABILITY OF VERIZON S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ] . I, Martha Thomas, reside at 4625 13 th Street, NW, Ap t. 201 Washington DC 20011 in Ward 4. 2. I fully support the Office of the People's Counsel Petition for an Investigation into the Reliability ofVerizon 's Telecommunications Infrastructure in the Dishi ct of Columbia. 3. I am a Verizoo landline phone service customer. . I have experienced constant quali ty of service problems with Verizon for some years now and have experienced lost of service twice in a three week period. Verizon technicians have visited my residence and my phone carne on after four days and now it is out again since Monday September 12, 2011 . 4. Specifically, I have experienced frequent phone service outages when it rains or during other inclement weather. I also have experienced persistent static interference on the line and other phone service interruptions, independent of the weather. Martha Thomas Date Subscribed and sworn before me this day of.______, 2011 . NOlm)' Seal Tamlka R. Dodson Notary Public, Dlstrfct of My Commission Expires 3 EXHIBIT P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OX' TIIE DISTRICJ OF COLUMBIA 1333 H STREET, NW, SECOND FLOOR, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 2m05 ORDER February 24,2014 OrderNo.17389 L TNTROqUCTTON 1. By this Order, the Public Service Commission,of the District of Columbia (CoEr4issionl') grants in part and denies in part the Application of Verizon Washington, DC ' Inc. ('iVerizon DC") for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. tlitl{ ('Verizon DC Application').2 Verizon DC shall submit the remedial plans required by Order No. 17313, as modified by this Order, within 30 days of the date of this Order. H. BACKGROT]IID 2. on August 26,201r, the office of the peoplers counsel ("opg:'1 filed a petition to investigate the reliab ("OPC Petitionl').' In Order No to investigate OPC's Petition.a established an issues list for this proceeding i l) How should service degradation be measured in the District of'Columbia to determine whether a service degradation problem exists? I Formal Case No. 1090, In the Matter of the Investigation into the Reliabitiry of Verizon Washington, DC's Telecomtnunications Infrastructuie ("Formal Ease No. I0g0-), Order No, ilZtl; ret. December 9,2013. 2 Formal Case No. t@0, Application of Verizon Washington, DC Inc. for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 173 I 3, filed January g, 2}\4(.Application'f 1 Formal Case No- 1090,'Mionof the office of the People's Counsel for an Investigation into the Reliability of Verizon's Telecommunications tnfrastructure in the District of Columbia C.OPC petition"), filed August 26,2011. a Formal Case No./090, OrderNo. 165g6,ret. October 14,ZOll. 5 Formol Case No. /090, Order No . l66gl,rel. January 26,2012. Order No.173E9 Ptge2 2) Does a service degadation problem exist in the District of Columbia with respect to Verizon DC's copper infrastructure? If so, what is the proper remedy? 3) Regarding Term 5 of the [Formal Case No.105fl Settlement Agreement,6 how is Verizon DC addressing the training, management and deployment of service technicians to reduce repeat troutle reports? 4) Regarding Term 9 of the Settlement Agreement, how has Verizon DC maintained the copper infrastructure in place and serving customers? Do improvements need to be made? 5) Regarding Term 11 of the Settlement Agreement, how has Verizon DC implemented a text messaging program to inform customers of the status of repairs? 6) Regarding Term 7 of the,settlement Agreement, what type of bill credit program has Verizon DC iinplemented? 7) Regarding Term 6 of the Settlement Agreement, what'type of customer service training_has Verizon DC implemented for its customer service representatives?' The Commission also determined that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary, so the Commission established a procedural schedule that included the submission of testimony, discovery, an evidentiary hearing for the determination of adjudicatory facts, and the submission of post-hearing briefs.u 3. On December 9,2013, the Commission issued Order No. 17313 in which it madE seven issues in this proceeding and directed verizon s-everal filings wittr the commission. 4. On January 8,2014, VerizonDC filed its Application for Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of,three findings in Order No. 173,13. Verizon DC contests: (l) the Commissionrs fachral finding that Verizon DCfs repeat trouble rate exceeds its internal standards and coresponding requiremerrt that Verizon DC file a remedial plan to bring its repeat trouble rate to within rwo percentage points of its internal standards within one y€ar; (2) the Commission's requiiernent that Verizon DC file a remedial plan to improve its residential copper trouble repair times such that the level equals its perfolmance in repairing business copper troubles; and (3) the Commission's finding that consumer complaints regarding interactions with customer service representatives regarding copper-to-fiber migrations suggest that some additional training or retraining is u The Settlement Agreement referenced in these issues is the Settlement Agreement between Verizon DC 'and OPC in Formal Case No. 1057 , the latest price cap plan proceeding. The Settlernent Agreement and Price Cap Plan 2(X)8 were approved in Order No. 15071. See Formal Case No. 1057, Order No. 15071, rel. September 26,2W5. t OrderNo.16692,I 13. t Order No. 16692, t 14. This initiat procedrual schedule was amended several times. Order No. 17389 paee 3 needed for customer service representatives. Verizon DC argues that these findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record, as requirld by D.C. Code g 2-509(e).e 5. On January 15,2014, OPC filed its Response of the Office of the People's Counsel in Opposition t9 the Application of Verizon Washington, ?S Inc.'s Application for Reconsideration of order No. 17313 ('iopc Response").10 opc urges the Commission to deny Verizon DC's Application because the Commission fully and carefully explained its reasoning in Order No. 17313.tt OPC asserts that Order No. 17313 considered all relevant facts, factors, and party positions;'provides a showing of substantial evidence for each of the Commission's decisi6ns, and has a just and reasonable overall effect on Verizon DC and District of Columbia public utility consumers and ratepayers.l2 OPC argues that Order No. 17313 clearly articulates the well of the Commission, which OPC maintains are fully supported by reco s, OPC concludes, Verizon DC's Application should be denied.l' III. DISCUSSION 6. The standards governing petitions for reconsideration of Commission orders are well settled. The purpose of a petition for reconsideration is to identify erors of law or fact in the Commission's initial Order so that thgy can be corrected.to Iti, ,rot u vehicle for losing parties to rehash arguments earlier considered and rejected. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's initial decision,',that decision is not erroneous simply-Commission because there is substantial evidence that could support a conftary conclusion.ls The enjoys wide discretion on the issues ttrat come before it, and in an order on a petition for reconsideration or clarification may clarify e VerizonDCApplicationatl. t0 Formal Case No.,1090, Response of the Office of the People's Counsel in Oppos-ition to the ApplicationofVerizonWashington,DClnc.'sApplicationforReconsiderationof OrderNo. tZ:tlC'OPC Response"), filed January 15, 2014. It oPc Response at l. '' Orc Response at l-2. l' oPC Response at 2. ta SeeD.C. Code $ 3+604 (b) (2001). '5 Formal Case No, 1053, In the Matter of the Application of the Potomac Electric Power Company for Authority to Increase Existing Retail Rates and Charges for Electricity Distribution Service, Ptwse II ("Formal Case No. 1053"), Order No. 14832,15 (June 13, 2008), citing State of New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1995) and Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pubtic Semice Commission, 856 A.2d 1098, I t04 (D.C. 2004). Order No. 17389 Page 4 certain findings and conclusions set forth in its initial decision.l6 Using this standard, the Commission turns to the issues raised by Verizon DC in its Application. A. f indings Regarding Term 5 of the Sefflement Agreement 7. Verizon DC. Verizon DC challenges the Commission's finding that Verizonhas not fully complied with Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement which required Verizon DC to train its service technicians to reduce repeat troubles.lT Specifically, Verizon, argues th ion's finding 's training has been ,.based insufficient and its, the submittal plan was on a flawed conrparison of repeat trouble rates measurin ects."l8 Verizon cites as errof the Commission's conclusion "that even the lowest repeat trouble rate for residential access lines that V for all coppgr access lines fro Verizon DC's own internal s cited by the Commission measure$ a different subset of repeat troubles handled by a different subset of technicianp from the repeat trouble rate for residential access lines calculated by the Commission. 8, In its Application for Reconsideration, Verizon DC notes that the evidentiary record in this ptoceeding contained only a:high level explanation of the Voice R-Code.a" Verizon DC then explains that the internal standard cited by the Commission is used by Verizon DC to evaluate the effectiveness of individual trnstallation & ning dispatchod repairs in the field. Verizon asures the percentage of an individual field ork troubles on which ,the techdcian is t that has an additional trouble reported for ed within 7 days of the original technician clearing the initial trouble. Verizon DC maintairrs that this measure does not include any troubles that were cleared without dispatching a technician, troubles worked by Central Office technicians, or troubles inside the home. 'u S"r, e..g., Folmal Case No. 1087, In the Matter of the Application of the po company for Auilnriry b Increq.se Existing Retail Rates and charges for Electic Order No. 17U27 ,t 3 (December 26, 20tZ), citing D.C. Code S 3+ffi(b) (200 I ). 17 Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement reads: "Verizon will train its service repair technicians in order to reduce repeat toubles for thJ sarne issues."lt verizon DC's definition of a "ripeat trouble" is a trouble that occurs again wiihin,3O days.rT It Verizon DC Applic ztionat2 re Verizon DC Application ar 2, citing Order No. lll3l3,|.2l2. n Verizon DC Application at2, n.2 (emphasis removed). Order No. 17389 Page 5 9. Verizon DC represents that the repeat trouble rates calculated by the Commission from OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 21, OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 50, and Table I of Witness Ketterer's Rebuttal Testimony represent the percentage of all copper network troubles reponed across the District of Columbia within 30 days of another copper netw_grk trouble on the same line, regardless of the type of technician who works on them.2l Verizon DC contends that thJse,repeat troubli rates include troubles on which either an I&M or Central Office technician was dispatched or performed repair work without being dispatchcd, in contrast to the Voice R-Code standard. Verizon DC asserts that the repeat trouble rate calculated by the Commission is over-inclusive when compared to the intirnal Voice R-Code standardj2 10. Because the Voice R-Code standard and the repeat trouble rate measure two different types of repeat troubles, Verizon DC contends that the Commission,relied on an "apples to oranges" comparison to reach its factual finding on repeat trouble rates and to set the requirements for a required remedial plan to reduce Verizon DC's residential copper repeat trouble fate "to within two percentage points of its voice R- Code standard.'l Verizon DC asserts that a comparison of the repeat trouble rate oice R-Code standard does not pro;ide record evidence to support tual finding or remedial plan order." 11. OPC. OPC contends that Verizon DC is incorrect in its assertion ttrat the Commission made an "apples-to-oranges" comparison to reach its colclusions regarding Verizon DC's failure to completely comply with Term 5.24 OPC asserts that Verizon DC Cornmission compared Verizon DC's internal individual technician the repeat trouble rates calculated by the Commission from OPC Cross Examination Exhibits Nos. 21 and 50 and Tabte I of Witness Ketterer's Rebuttal Testimony. 'OPC claims that the Commission calctrlated:that OPC's repeat trouble rates and Witness Ketteret's repeat rate represent the percentage of copper network troubles in the District of Columbia that occurred within lO days of anothei iopper network trouble on the same line,regardless of the type of technician that worked on them. OPC asserts that verizon DC's focus on "subset" comparisons is specious and misplaced.2s 12. OPC also argues that the Commission's decision regarding Term 5 was based on substantial evidence that demonstrated that service technician training did not appreciably reduce repeat trouble rates in the District of Columbia. OPC asserts that the decision was based solely on record evidence showing that the service technician training 2l Verizon DC Application at 2-3 (emphasis removed). 22 Verizon DC Application at 3. 23 Verizon DC Application at 3. OPC Response at 4. OPC Response at 5. Order No. 123t9 paee 6 failed torappreeiably reduce repeat trouble rates in the District of Columbia.26 OPC notes that the Commission cited favorably OPC's argument "that the only conclusion the record evidence supports is that Verizon DC's strategy of reducing repeat troubles as a all of Verizon,DC's training has been ineffective."zi OPC asserts that no ld boast of a "failure rate,'; or repeat trouble rate in excess of [BEGIN COM|IDEI\TTIAL _ INFORMATIONj IEND COMIDENTIAL IYF'ORMATIONI:8 13. OPC argues that Verizon DC is wrong in its assertions of error. OPC contends that based on the Commission's own analysis of OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 50, the Commission 4-etermined that "the-residential repeat troubles rate is e, not decreasing."2e OPC maintains that a similar C]ommission analysis Examination Exhibit No. 21 led to the Commission's conclusion that "[w]hile [the combined business and residential repeat trouble] rates are lower than the rates for residential access lines, they average TBEGIN COMIDENTIAL INFORMATIONI IEND- CONT'IDENTIAL INFORMATIONI excluding September and October 2011 data."3O OPC represents that based on its own analysis and O?C's testimony, the Commission disagreei with Verizon DC's assertion that any decline, no matter how small, in the repeat trouble rate means that Verizon DC is in compliance with Term 5. To the contrary, OPC contends that the Commission found that "[t]he records show [] that there has not been any appreciable decline in repeat troubles. We were expeCting to see a more noticeable reduction in the amount of repeat troubles in response to this Settlement Agreernent.',31 L4. Contrary to Verizon DC's contentions, OPC asserts that the Commission based'its: deaision on substantial evidence in the record showing that Verizon DC's E:'ffii fif,"nTffi,?rilp: tra,ining repeat trouble rate, the com4ission finds that verizon DC has not f Term 5."32 According to OPC, the Comnii Verizon DC to file its remedial plan regarding repeat moubles to es.33 26 OPC Response at 5. n OFC Response at 5, citing Order No. l73l3,ll9Z. 2E OPC Response at 5-6, citing Order No. 173 13, { l%. 29 OPC Response at 6, citing Order No. 17313,12W. 30 OPC Response at 5, citing Order No. L1-3l3,\21O. 3l OPC Response at 6, citing Order No. I73l3,IZlZ. J2 OPC Respons e at 6-7 ,1220. 33 OPC Response at 7. Order No. 17389 Page 7 15. Finally, OPC claims that the Commission?s determination 'regarding Verizon DC's repeat trouble rates is not based on any comparison of different subsets of repeat trouble rates; instead, the record evidence clearly shows that Verizon DC training efforts were ineffective in appreciably reducing repeat troubles in the'iDistrict of Columbia as established in Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement. OPC posits'that Verizon DC may misapprehend the Commission's Order because the Commission uses Verizon DC's internal standards as a benchmark for setting the goals that it wants Verizon DC to achieve.for the repeat trouble rate for all copper-netwo-rks within one year of submitting its plan.3a 16. Decision. As noted above, on reconsideration,, the Commission must determine whether Verizon DC has identified any legal or factual error in Order No. 17313 that merits conection by the Commission. Verizon DC, as the proponent of the Application, has the burdeh of proof regarding the existence of any error. We turn now to Verizon DC's assertions of error. 17. The Commission in its decision noted that "even the lowest repeat troublerate for residential access lines that Verizon DC reported from June 2009 through MayZOL2 and for all copper access lines from April 2011 is much higher than Verizon DC's own intemal standards' (x) That it is difficult to reconcile Verizon's DC's position that the current repeat trouble rate for residential copper access lines is acceptable since Verizon's .dards are much lower than the repeat trouble 3eeding-:'n1161 , aldrough th In its Application, Verizon DC provided a more detailed explanation of its own Voice R- Code internal standards and argues funher in a footnote that; Even if the R-Code and the repeat trouble standards compared the same data set of troubles, it is incorrect the percentages for individual te ates and D ates because the volumes are different. Because each individual technician works a different number of troubles in a single month, the repeat troubles 34 OPC Response at 7. l5 Order No. 17313, 1212. 36 Order No. 17313,T348 (x). Order No. 17389 Page 8 percentage for each technician cannot simply be averages to calculate the repeat trouble rate District-wide.37 Notably, Verizon DC's A.pplication does not cite to any alternative record evidence that more accurately measures the levels of repeat troubles in the District. Neither does Verizon DC provide the Commission with an alternative benchmark to use to measure Verizon DC's repeat troubles on a going forward basis. 18. OPC, on the other hand, claims that Verizon's focus on "subsef' comparisons is "specious and misplaced" and maintains that the Comrnission "calculated that repeat trouble rates and Verizon DC Witness Ketterer's repeat rate represent the pereentage of copper network troubles in the District of Columbia that occurred within 30 days network trouble on the sa(ne line regardless of the type of 38 techn n them." OPC argues that the Commission's decision was based on substantial',evidence and therefore Verizon DC's challenge should be rejected. 19. , It is clear from Order No. 17313 that the Commission fust determined that the,evidence showed that there had been only a fluctuation, not an appreciable decline, in the repeat trouble rate, and then compared the repeat trouble rate to Verizon DC's Voice R-Code intemal standard. The finding on the rcpeal trouble rate is based on OPC Cross Examination Exhibits Nos. 50 and2l and Witness Ketterer's testimony. The Commission thoroughly analyzed these exhibits and the table, which revealed similar information regarding,Verizon DC's repeat trouble results. From this evidence, the Commissisn concluded that the repeat trouble rate had not appreciably:declined from 2009 through 2011. In its AppJication, validity of this finding. conclude that Verizon D has not met its burden of showing in its Application that the Commission erred in its finding there,has been no appreciable change in the rate of repeat troubles or that its finding is not based on substantial evidence. 24. The Commission acknowledges Verizon DC's belated clarification of its Voice-R-Code internal standard raises a question of whether it is the appropriate benchmark to be used to measure Verizon DC's performance going forward under the remedial.plan that the Commission has directed Verizon DC to file. It is, we note, a question for which Verizon DC provided us no alternative answer. Nevertheless, the Comrnission has reconsidered whether Verizon DC's Voice R-Code internal standard should be used as the benchmark for performance for repeat troubles in the remedial plan in light of the Company's further explanation and has concluded that the benchmark for the remedial plan needs to be amended. The Commission continues to believe that the repeat trouble rate should decrease appreciably. The question for the Commission is what amount of decrease would be reasonable during the next year. OPC has argued that 31 Verizon Application at 3, n 5. 3E OPC Response at 5. Order No. 17389 Page 9 no company should boast of a repeat trouble rate over [BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONI [ENDCONFIDENTIALINFORMATIONI. While,therate OPC cited may be a reasonable goal, there is no indication in the record that it is' a performance benchmark that can be achieved next yeaf,and we will not use it as a substitute for the internal standard to which Verizon DC objects. Instead, the Commission is directing Verizon DC to file a remedial plan indicating how it will reduee irs average repeat trouble rate of TBEGIN CoNIIDENTIAL nrrOnUnrtoNl IEND COMIDENTIAL INFORMATIONI to achieve at least a tOVo reduction in the repeat trouble rate within one 'year of the date of this Order and to inforrn the Commission of the rate of reduction that it can achieve in the following year. This remedial plan is due within 30 days of the date of this Order. B. Findings Regarding Term 9 of the Settlement Agreenent 2I. Verizon DC. Verizon DC notes that the Commission found that Verizon DC is not fully complying with Term 9 of the Settlernent Agreement which requires Verizon DC to 'lmaintain the copper infrastnrcture in use and serving customers" based on its purported analysis of trouble report data, but argues that no record evidence supports the Commission's finding on residential repair times or the remedial plan ordered based on business repair times. Verizon DC objects especially to the conclusion that "although the number of residential copper troubles decreased in 2011 from 2010, it took longer for Verizon DC to repair coppei uoubles in 201l.'fi YerizonDC argues that the factual basis for the Csmmission's conclusions is unclear. While the Commission cited OPC's Cross Examination Exhibit No. 45 as the source for the data it examined, Verizon DC asserts that OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 45 reflects consumer complaint data" not trouble report timeframes.al Verizon DC believes that the Commission meant OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46, which includes trouble data for'the time period from April 2@ through Decembet ZOll provided to OPC in discovery. However, Verizon, DC asserts that the data in OPC Cross Exarnination Exhibit No. 46 does not identify business or residential troubles and could not be used to compare business and residential repair response times.a2 Verizon DC also argues that because OPC Cross Examination Exhibit only nine months of data, the Commission's comparison of repair times lZan is meaningless.a3 3e The Commission's calculation of this rate is based on the dara for business and residential repeat troubles included in OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46. 'ro Verizon DC Application at 3, citing Order No. l?313, q{ 270,348 (aa). 4t Verizon DC Application at 4. 42 Verizon DC Application at 4. 43 Verizon DC Applicatio n at 4, n. 9. Order No. 17389 Page 10 22. ,Verizon DC also asserts that the Commission's analysis of repair times presents an incomplete and misleading picture of Verizon DC's speed oi repair,# Verizon DC contends that the Commission's analysis does not take into account the fact that the out=of-service troubles must be prioritized to meet the Commission's Out-of- Service Clearing Tirne retail quality of service measrue. Out-of-service troubles,must be repaired within 24 hours, while service-affecting but not orrt-of-service troubles do not have to be repaired within 24 hours.a5 Verizon DC also argues that the Commission did not take into account whether a trouble report was receivfr outside of normal business hour-s or whEthir a customer expressly requested a specific repair time! According to Verizon DC, the Commission's determinations also did not take into account the Force Majeure ey'ents of Algust and Septernber of 2011, and selectively focused on,A.ugust 2011 on the low point for copper troubles cleared in less than24 hours. Verizon DC for August 201L reflect the outlier nature of,August 2011, which majoriiy of the Force Majeure events.aT 23. Verizon DC further contends that despite the Commission noting that it "cannot make any conclusions about whether Verizon DC clears troubles on residential copper lines more slowly than business copper lines,"48 the Commission is requinng Verizon DC to develop a remedial plan "to improve its perform'ance on repairing residential copper trqub:les so that its ievel,of perfbrmance ii similar to Verizon DC's performance in repairing business copper troubles."ae Verizon DC also maintains that the ordering paragaphs goes further and requires Verizon DC to submit a remedial plan to I copper troubles to equal its repair times on argues that the remedial plan focused on 7 repair times is not based on any record 24. Verizon DC also contends that the Commission did not explain why the repair times for residential and business troubles on copper lines should be equal. According to Veirizon DC, there is no Commission rule or provision in the Settlement Agreement that requires repair tirnes to be equal. Verizon DC contends that there are a Verizon DC Application at 4. 45 Verizon DC Application 4. 4 Veri2on DC Application at 4-5. Verizon DC Application at 5. ,IE Verizon DC Application at 5, citing Order No. 17313,1266. 49 Verizon DC Application at 5, citing Order No. 17313,127l. 50 Verizon DC Application at 5. 5l Verizon DC Application at 5-6. Order No. 17389 pase 11 number of reasons for which repair times for residential and business customers could be different. As an example, Verizon DC contends that business troubles'can only be repaired during a customer's business hours, while residential troubles can only be repaired when a customer is not at work. Verizon DC also maintains that technicians have more difficulty in accessing multiple dwelling unit ("MDU") buildings, which are primarily residential. Verizon DC also argues that residential troubles are more often reported after business hours, delaying service technician deployment.s2 '25. Finally, according to Verizon DC, the imposition of a remedial plan that requires only Verizon DC to provide equal response times for business and residential customers is "artti-competitive, arbitrary and unsupported by record evidence" because the Commission has previously determined that, as a fundamental matter, all telecommunications service providers operating in the District of Columbia will be subject to symmetrical quality of service standards."5 26' OPC. OPC agrees with Verizon DC about the Commission's references to OPC Cross Fxamination Exhibit No. 45. Like Verizon DC, OPC believes that the Commission meant OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46. OPC requests that the Commission clarify and possibly correct the exhibit to which the Commission refers in paragraphs 266 and267 as well as foornotes 577 and5?8 of orderNo. 17313.s4 27. Contrary to Verizon DC's contention that the Commission did not analyze out-of-service troubles, OPC argues that the Commission did analyze and make findings forth the parties' '55 oPc iubmits OFC argues that d into evidence in this proceeding, included data about, houble reports received outside of norrnal business hours and whether a customer expressly requested a specific repair time.57 OPC contends that the Commission stated that it examined the evidence on the troubles per access line that both parties agreed would allow the Commission to determine how well Verizon DC's network in general, and th ork in particular, is working, although the Comrnission noted that the parties on what the data showed.sf, Veri2on DC Application at 6. 53 Verizon DC Application at 6. 54 OFC Response at E. 55 OPC Response at 8, citing Order No. 17313,1270. 56 OPC Response at 8. 57 OPC Response at 9. J6 OPC Response at 9. Order No. 17389 Page12 28. OPC dismisses Verizon DC's objections to the remedial plan ordered by the Commission; pmticularly the requirement that the remedial plan ensure that Verizon DC's response times for clearing troubles for residential customers be equal to Verizon DC's response times for business customers. OPC argues that there is substantial evidence in,the record to support the Commission's concem that Verizon DC's response to repair residential copper troubles took longer in 2011 than 2010. OPC cites the Commission's finding: "Based on the trouble report data that the Commission has reviewede the Commission concludes that. although the number of residential copper troubles decreased in 2011 from 2010, it took longer for Verizon DC to repair copper problems in 2011."5e 29. OPC also iugues that the Commission has the'statutory authority to specify goals in its remedial plans. [n support of this proposition, OPC cites D.C. Code $ 34-1'101,, which,states that the Commission has broad authority to ensure that alt services provided bya public utility are "in all aspectsjust and reasonable" and that all charges for such service are i'reasonable, just, and nondiscriminatory."w Other statutory provisions gr-ant authority to regulate all aspects of public utility rates and selvices, OPC Washington Cas ttght Cimpany i. puOti, Service Commission.6l OPC' Code $ 34-215 provides that "[t]he term 'service' is used in this subtitle in its broadest and most inclusive sense."6t OPC rnaintains that D.C. Code $ 34- 403 provides that the Commission "shall have . . . all additional, implied, and incidental :o effect and carry out, performr and execute C asserts has the legal riTon DC ly affecl the thar the respons for reside,,t,r,.""nnjl"illlnf,rnf!'"*#il"ftH,T"t;T: ffi:ffi: business copper OPC contends that the Commission used Verizon DC's response times for business customers as a benchmark,in establishing the goal for Verizon DC to meet in repqir,ing residential copper lines. Contrary to VerizoriDC's assertions, OPC submits that the Commission did not derive this number in an,arbitrary fashion, but used evidence,in the record to establish a reasonable goal.s 5e OPC Response at9, citing Order No. l73l3,TZ7O. 60 OPC Response at 10, citing D.C. Code g 3+l l0l. u' OPC Response at 10, citing Washington Gas Light Company v. Public Semice Commission, S56 A.2d 1098, l lOs (D.c. 2004). 62 OPC Response at 10, citing D.C. Code g 3+215. 63 oPC Response at 10, citing D.C. Code g i+i(/3. 64 OPC Response at 10. Order No. 17389 , Page 13 30. Decision. As a threshold matter, the Commission notes that its references to OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 45 are in error. These references should be to OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46. Thus, the Commission corrects the references in paragraphs 26'6,267 and 268, as well as foohrotes 577 and 578 (Confidential Version) and 578 and 579 (Public Version) of Order No. 17313, to reflect that the Commission reviewed OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46, not 45, in making decisions regarding Term 9. 31. The Commission further notes that in evaluating con-rpliance with Term 9 (i e.,,whether Verizon DC satisfied its agreement to 'lmaintain the copper infrastructure in use and serving customers"), the Commission evaluated evidence of clearanae of "trouble': reports. The Commission notes that "troubles" are not synonymous with "out- of-service" conditions. '"Troubles" encompass all service-affecting problems on an acc€ss line, which include but are not limited to out-of-service conditions. r'Out-of- service",conditions are conditions in which the access line is not'operable. Some of Verizon DCf s objections to both the Commissionis findings and the mandated remedial plan assume that the Commissisn confirsed the out-of-service conditions included in the Out-of-Service Clearing Tirne measure with determinations related to troubles or did not tealize that they are two different things.65 We assure Verizon DC that is not the case. The Commission is concerned with performance in both categories. 32. Verizon DC argues that the Commission should have excluded the results related to the Force lt[ajeure events ttlat led to increased repair times in August 2011 and September 20ll from its analysis of trouble clearance. The Commission notes that it excluded results relating to the Force Majeure events its discussion the repeat in of - trouble rate, so to be consistent, it also excl these tfre Commission's analysis regarding clearance of Thus, ion recalculated residential copper repair times bas PC Cr ion Exhibit'No. 46, but excluding August and September 2011, as requested by Verizon DC in its Application. These calculations show that IBEGII{ CONII]ENTIAL TNFORMATTONI 65 Some of Verizon DC;s arguments app€ar to be based on aggregating resulls from the Commission's RQS measures and the eviderce evaluated in this proceeding dealing with Term 9. Two of the Commission's RQS metrics measure Out-of-service Clearing, the time it takes to cleal out-of-.service conditions, and the Troubles Per 100 Lines metric, which me-asures the number of lines experiencing troubles. The evidence evaluated to determine compliance with Term,9 is evidence regarding trouble cleared within 24 hours, which is not currently measured by the Commission in is RQS metrics. 66 The Csmmission notes that in its anatysis of the repeat trouble rate, it excluded data from September and October 2011, while its analysis of trouble clearance focuses on August and September 20 I I ' This apparent discrepancy is due to the fact that the repeat trouble analysis focuses on troubles that :' occur again within 30 days, which would necessarily be a time period after the original houble. 67 Verizon DC argues that the 2C[9 datashould not be used in comparison to 201I data because the 2Cf/9 dala is not a complete years' worth of data. The Commission disagrees, especially since Verizon DC argues for the exclusion of August and September 20l l data, making the 201I data an incomplete year's worth of data as well. To calculate the clearance time for troubles, a complete year of data is not required. Order No. 17389 68 IEND COMIDENTIAL INFORMATIONI These numbers confirm the Commission's nnd11e that although the number of troubles decreased in 2011, the percentage of troubles that took more than 24 hours to repair increased in 2011, .u"o August and Septetnber "*.iuding 2011. oPC Cross Exarnination Exhibit No. 46 is the basis for the determination that verizon DC is not fully in compliance wittr T;-9;*;;;; ii i, not maintaining the copper network. Thus, there is iubstantial evidence t" td;"rd;; suppol the Commission's finding that Verizon DC is not maintaining the copper network. 33' Verizon DC challenges the Commission's decision to benchmark residential trouble clearing times to business trouble clearing times in thoi"-*ala pr* f with Term 9. Verizon DC first claims that hese clearing times to be equal because the rement, and because the RQS metrics are on DC's challenge. The Commission is not rr the Commission's RQS measures. Rather, 7313 is being ordered due to a failure of DC to fully Y:."'* comply with tgnn 9 of the Settlenient Agreement, not due to its failure. to satisfy the RQS rnetrics.6e As OpC contends, the Commission has broad authority of pub ability to copper services. nas ttre remedial to satisfy th_e 'plan ageement that it made in its -hice -- Cap Settlement case to maintain its copper network in use and serving .u.,ornrrrJt 68 OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46. 69 RQS rul re file a s"TI^': n of a re servicestr vr,€ as RQs Senice Commission,856 A.2d at 1105, citing D.C. ..[i]n nn its own initiative and its discretion " to yes are "in any respect umeasonable or unjustly ..[w]henever 3 the Commission to investigate the :e is not supplied by a public urility.") and D.C. Code . inclusive sense"). 7t Thec'onnnission notes that in order No. 17313, it stated "[t]he commission believes that Verizon rc need flexibility in c-omplying T1{ with this mandate, so [we] will not direct rhe exact contents of the remedial plan." Order No . 173 13, \212. 34' Verizon DC has asked the Commission to reconsider the requirement of a remedial plan that uses an equal or similar trouble clearance rate for residential copper lines and business copper lines. verizon DC presented i" il-;;pl;..ri"ri.^.".u* reasons why the clearance rates for these "t in Order No. 17313, the Commission s whether Verizon DC clears troubles more s Verizon DC is correct on this latter point. Tl this issue based on the record eviience. attempt to expl proceed more These argument OpC noted in tantial evidence Commission,s ,ir residential copper problems needed to be epted the 2008 Settlement Agreement, it did I would continue to maintain its residential clearance.raterorresidentialcopperrir,"r*itH?r'rliffi ffi ffi fr1lT]ji: regardless of the 3ff"ff P "nTg:, rate for business copp€r lines. Thus, the Commission amends the benchmark"1"**"" for percentage 1edu1^e_its of residenriul ;dpo by lUVo from the 2011 number in'the Commission of the level of reduction that can be expected in the following year.73 This revised remedial plan is due within 30 days of the date of this order. c. F'indings Regarding Term 6 of thesettlement Agreement rgues that the Commission found that the training as required by Term 6 of the 20Og :cted Verizon DC to review and potentially :s customer service representatives are not ;ervice customers to obtain the repairs that rket pressure to change to fiber facilities or :se reguirements are unsupported by record 72 opCResponseatg. 73 In order No' 17313, the Commission decided to institute a rulemaking proceeding to amend RQS rules' The commissign its may choose to include a trouble clearance metric in that proceeding. the standard that verizon If so, DC is required to meet fursuant to this ora"i ,""y change, 74 This Term states in relevant part that verizon DC will "implement cuslomer service representatives." training for its 't5 Verizon DC Application at 7, citing Order No. I 73 I 3, { 3 13. 76 Verizon DC Application at 7. he substance ol any complaints on fiber ld in this docket because the Cornmission copper-to-FiOS migration issues from this tomer migration from the copper to digital rg, which deals with the quality of Verizon any the any finding or directive based o related to fiber migration estatlished subject matter of to several orders in which the Commission has stated that "our cases proceed . . . in the gontext of specifically worded issues that have been identified to mark the outer boundaries of the case before the Commission.,,Te 37 Verizon ' DC also asserts that it has already f,rled relevant scripts rn Formal case No. 1102 as confidential Attachments 2, 3, and i ti- i"n on DC,s April l, 2013 Response to order No. 12092 and as co#oential Attachment z io.t;6;;; to opc :sents that these scripts are those used by its lentatives who handle communications with ions or migrations to Verizon DC's FiOS ,s with Verizon DC's position. OpC argu€s equire Verizon DC to review its customer ies of certain scripts with the Commission. e it clear that it has the authority to exercise authority in the same proceeding.s2 OpC tr termine the legal t; its quasi-judicial : i on totdevelop the ontends that the Commission Hearing, in which the public s views on the issues in a 77 Verizon DC Applicatiqn at 7, citing order No. 16692,I Il . 78 Verizon DC Applicarion at Z-E. 19 Verizon g DC Applicationat (citations and emphasis omiaed). Verizon DC Applicatio n at 7, n. 22. ET Verizon DC Applicatio n at 7 , n. 22. OPCResponseat ll. OPC submits that the Commission chose to mity Brief into the record of this proceeding, : the Community Brief like any other brief sserts that community comments, like the used to furttrer inform the Commission of rpropriate.8a e is sufficient content within the Comrnunity m regarding Issue 7. OpC argues that the ls contain several references to Verizon DC's s as well as examples of undue pressure to nts from Verizon DC customers made at the res that these statements from the record han sufficient to support the Commission's )C's record evidence argument should be N' oPC also contests Verizon DC's argument that the Commission,s decision t quality of repairs have a direct funpact on E3 OpCResponseat ll. 84 OpC Respons e* 12. 85 OpC Respons e at 12. 86 OpCResponseat 13. 87 opC Response at 13. 88 OpC Response at 13. 8e- OpC Response at 13-14. /er which :ision is c . Finally, md only seeks to remedy customer service he record in this proceeding.m on DC's contentions, the Commission made a nts based on Verizon DC and OpC consumer rn Exhibit No. 45 and Verizon DC Cross Commission found much of the consumer inc.reasing.e2 Based onthat finding, rh"Bil to review its training materials to ensure that its customer servicg representatiu"s a." not making it unnecessarily difficult for copper service customers to obtain tt ,"puir,, they are requesting and to make adjustments to its "training, where necessary, to ensure that all customers {ue receiving quality servici over copper facilities without undue marketing pressure to change to fiber facilities or FiOS service.,, coltention that it did not respond to issues roceeding because they are outside the scorpe that Formal Case No. l I02 was opened io r customers from the telecommunications telecommunic n's directives ,erials address rr those customefs who are still receiving : directives, the Commission seeks to ensurl reeds to be repaired ar€ not directed to other rc repaired. The issue of customer service pairs is clearly within the scope of this m OPC Response at 14. 9l Order No. t7 3 B, frc45-347. Order No. t7313,1345- 347. 93 Order No. t73t3,1352. Formal Case No. /,102, OrderNo. l7CFtS,t l, rel. January t7,ZOl3. that part of this mandatb touches on the ' if Verizon DC is offering transition from Thus, the Commission continues to direct assisting their coppe,':#a?Jii.:::['ini':ilil-_I3,:n'l,ff; not merel o fiber as the remedy tolopp"t service problems. Verizon DC has not shown that the Commission ened nor does it-offer *y;;;;iu, ,"uron ro, lhe-c-aqmissiontodr."j-i['nardat".;g.Jirgil;;;;"'^ sentative,training included in order No. r7313, thus the commisiion's decis 43' n"g*{TF^*" scripts that Verizon DC asserts that it,has already provided n Formal Case No. ll02,e6 the Commission fomd that'they provide direction to custome of copper service customers to fiber seryice Commission. Of the four scripts provided, onl. thr.ee qre s,cripts for outbound calls. The inbo d calling sclipt,,focuses on customer migration from.copper to fiber.e7 since verizon DC il;r";idfu il;p" ,"q*u"a by the commission in order No. r73'r3, albeit n i'ormat case Ni. tttiz. ue en satisfied and does not require tne hting contents of the scripts provided further DC needs to review its customer service representative training to ensure that Verizon DC's customer service representatives and technicians inform customers of the ability to have their copper service repaireo witfroui having to migrate to a service provided over fiber. tt In order No. 17045, the Commission noted that the issues in,Formal Case No. ILX) Nerelated to the issues related to the continued use of the copper inftastructure. oroei wo fius,iz.-' e6 The Commission takes administrative notice of these filings. IMORMATION] IEND CONFIDENTIAL Order No. 173E9 ' Ptge2D IV. CONCI,U" SION 44. Based on Verizon DC's Application and OPC's Respnse, the Commission determines that its findings regarding Verizon DC's failure to firlly comply with Term 5 and Tenn 9 of the Settlement Agreement, and its directive regarding Issue 7 and Tenn 6 of the Settlement Agreement are supported by substantial evidence. For the leiNons set out in this Order, the Commission modifies Order No. 17313, in three respects. First, while the Commission finds that Verizon DC has not identified any error that the Commission made in requiring Verizon DC to submit a remedial plan in response to Verizon DC?s failure to fulty comply with Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement, the,Cbmmission is modifying the remedial plan to require Verizon DC to meet a lOVo rduction in the repeat trouble rate from the average repeat trouble rate for 2011 excluding results from thJFo rce Majeure events within o* y"* and to provide the Commission with the amorrnt of reductiorr that can be accomplished in the next year. Second, the Commission corrects its references to OPIC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 45 in paragraphs 265, 267 and 268, as well as fooffnotes 577 and 578 (Confidential Version) and 578 and 579 (Public Version) of Order No. 17313 to refer to OPC Cross Examination'Exhibit No. 46. Third; the Commission is modifying the remedial plan required by the Commission in response to Verizon DC's failure to fully comply with Term 9 to require Verizon DC to reduce its clearance of residential copper trorrbles in over24 hours by LDVo fromthe 20ll number in the record within one year and to provide the Commission with the amount of reduction that can be accomplished in the next year. The Co-mmission confirms its directive in Order No. 17313 for Verizon DC to review its customer training and scripts and make changes to them; as necessary, DCls customer service representatives and technicians inform cus ability to have their copper service repaired without having to migrate to ded over fiber if they so choose. The Commission also directs Verizon DC to comply with the mandate of Order No. 17313 that was not ch-allenged by Verizon DC but stayed by the filing of Verizon DC's Application, i.e. the requirement to filera report irrdicating when it updated its customer bills to comply with 15 DCMR g 2724.a@)() and file a sample bill showing the business hours. All of these reports and remedial plans are due within 30 days of the date of this Order. THENBTORE,IT IS ORDERED THAT: 45. The Application of Verizon Washington, DC lnc. for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 17313 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 46. Verizon Washington, DC Inc. shall prepare a remedial plan indicating how it will improve its petformance on repeat troubles, including its repeat troubles on its copper,network, so that within one year, it will reduce its repeat trouble rate to achieve at least a LOTo reduction in the repeat trouble rate from the average repeat trouble rate for 20ll,excluding results from the Force Majeure events and shall inform the Commission of the level ol further reduction that it can achieve in the following year. Verizon Washin$on, DC Inc. shall file its remedial plan with the Commission within 30 days of the date of this Order; Order No. 173t9 Page2L 47. Verizon Washington, DC Inc. shall prepare a remedial plan to reduce its clearance of residential copper troubles in over 24 hours by lOVo from the 2011 number in the record within one year and to provide the Commission with the amount of reduction that can be accomplished in the next year and shall file its remedial plan with the Commission within 30 days of the date of this Order; 48. Verizon Washington, DC Inc. shall review its training materials and scripts and to make changes to them, as necessary, to ensure that Verizon DC's customer service representatives and technicians inform customers of their ability to have their copper service repaired without having to migrate to a service provided over fiber if they so choose; to ensure that its customer service representatives and its service technician are not making it unnecessarily difficult for copper service custom€rs to obtain the repairs they are requesting, and to ensure that all customers are receiving quality service from copper facilities without undue marketing pressure to change to fiber facilities or FiOS service; 49. Paragraphs 266, 267 and 268 as well as footnotes 577 and 578 (Confidential Version) and 578 and 579 (Public Version) of Order No. 17313 are conected to change the references to "OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 45" to read "OPC Cross Examination Exhibit No. 46"; and 50. Verizon Washington, DC Inc. shall f,rle a report indicating when it updated its customer bills to comply with 15 DCMR fi 2720.a@)(a) and file a sample bill showing the business hours within 30 days of this Order. A TRUE COPY: BY DIRECTION OF TIIE COMMISSION: a l , t' ;rfl.n-r-_9"- _/ u/-'!_ CHIEF CLERK: BRINDA WESTBRO COMI/ilSSION SECRETARY