Nearly four months after Hurricane Sandy struck Manhattan, many customers are still waiting to get their phone and Internet service restored.

Verizon’s black hole extends across parts of Lower Manhattan, such as along Avenue C, roughly from Third Street to Tenth Street. There, business transactions are often “cash-only,” because stores and bars have no ability to process credit card transactions. But getting cash can also be difficult as ATMs, which also rely on Verizon’s network, display the same “Offline” message they have shown for more than three months.

Some of Verizon’s customers are fed up, especially after the company started asking customers to pay for phone and broadband service they don’t have. Several customers report the company expects its monthly bills to be paid, with complicated service credits forthcoming after payments are applied. Customers who don’t pay have been assessed late fees or face collection activity for service that has not worked since Halloween.

WNYC Radio reports it has been nearly four months since Hurricane Sandy hit the northeastern U.S. and large sections of Lower Manhattan still don’t have phone or broadband service from Verizon. (February 13, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Verizon does not seem to be in much of a hurry, a point of contention with the New York State Public Service Commission, which may be preparing to fine Verizon yet again for failing to meet service standards. The company has been on probation with the PSC for some time. Last summer, the regulator fined Verizon $100,000 for missing required service standards during the month of July, 2012. More than 1,100 of 5,400 reported outages were not repaired within the required 24 hours.

That was an improvement over how the company performed in October and December, 2011, where prolonged service outages provoked the PSC to eventually fine Verizon $400,000.

This time Verizon wants a free pass from more fines, claiming enormous restoration efforts necessitated by Sandy are responsible for any delayed response.

Assistant Attorney General Keith Gordon is not buying it. He called Verizon’s reports on outages “disingenuous at best,” and accused Verizon of manipulating data and delivering incomplete outage statistics.

Nobody outside of Verizon knows how many New Yorkers still lack phone or Internet service — the PSC is obligated to keep specific numbers private at the behest of the telecommunications companies themselves.

“Given the fact that the telecommunication industry is highly competitive, such information is considered confidential,” James Denn, a PSC spokesperson told WNYC Radio.

[flv width=”534″ height=”320″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Lower Manhattan Resident Has Lost Phone Service For Months Following Sandy 1-15-13.mp4[/flv]

NY1 reports on Greenwich Village residents who are still without Verizon service months after Sandy. They claim Verizon broke multiple promises to get service restored.  (1 minute)

The Bloomberg Administration strongly disagrees with the PSC’s handling of outage information.

“This information should also be made publicly available to consumers so they may track the status repairs, obtain reasonable estimates as to when service might be restored, and compare performance across competing carriers,” said Rahul Merchant, chief information and innovation officer for New York City.

For customers who can’t manage their businesses without phone or Internet service, relief is coming from an increasingly aggressive Time Warner Cable.

Verizon’s largest rival has dispatched armies of salespeople onto the streets in Verizon-deprived areas. The cable company has begun to steal away a number of out-of-service Verizon customers.

That occasionally comes as a surprise to Verizon workers that show up to make repairs, only to be told “I quit you two weeks ago,” by annoyed business owners.

Verizon never got the message.

[flv width=”624″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNBC New York Sandy-Damaged High School Still Without Phone Service 3 Months After Storm 2-6-13.flv[/flv]

WNBC reports this New York City high school has been left without Verizon service for three months, forcing teachers and staff to use cell phones to communicate.  (2 minutes)

Netflix has released figures for January ranking Internet Service Providers delivering the best viewing experience for viewing Netflix’s catalog of online video titles.

At the top is Google Fiber, which comes as little surprise considering Google provides 1,000/1,000Mbps service to its limited number of customers in Kansas City.

Suddenlink saw the greatest improvement. The mostly-rural and small city cable provider jumped five points in January’s ratings, scoring 3rd. Cablevision’s Optimum broadband service jumped ahead of three rivals to score second place.

Time Warner Cable and Cox remained in the middle, while AT&T U-verse demonstrated that the benefits of a fiber network end when the remaining copper wire to the customer’s home comes into play. U-verse performed only marginally better than the DSL services of independent phone companies like Windstream and CenturyLink. Frontier managed some minor improvement, now scoring 14th place out of 17.

The worst performers: DSL services from both Verizon and AT&T and Clearwire’s 4G WiMAX network, which scored dead last.

A big 40oz can of Hype from the Washington Post.

Conservative bloggers are calling it socialized “Obama-Wi-Fi,” broadband advocates claim it represents salvation from high-priced wireless service plans, and the media echo chamber is amplifying reports that the federal government in on the verge of launching a nationwide free Wi-Fi network.

Sorry folks, it is not to be.

An article in Sunday’s Washington Post originally titled, “FCC Proposes Large Public WiFi Networks” got the ball rolling, and almost 3,000 reader comments later, a full-scale debate about the merits of government-supplied Wi-Fi Internet access is underway.

Cecilia Kang and her headline writer mislead readers with statements like these:

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

[…] If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas.

There is nothing new about the FCC’s effort to set aside unlicensed spectrum for so-called “white space” Wi-Fi. As the spectrum wars continue, wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are pushing proposals to further shrink the number of channels on the UHF television band and repurpose them for expanded cellular data networks. That newly available spectrum would be secured through an FCC auction. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wants to set aside some of that available spectrum for unlicensed use, including the next generation of Wi-Fi, which will greatly extend its range and speed.

There is no proposal on the table for the government to fund or create a free, national Wi-Fi network as an alternative to paid commercial services. At issue is simply how 120MHz of newly-available television spectrum would be made available to new users. Republicans and large wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are demanding the vast majority of that spectrum be auctioned off. AT&T and Verizon would like to expand their spectrum holdings, and a straight “highest bidder wins” auction guarantees the vast majority of it will be divided by those two companies. Many Democrats and broadband advocates want a portion of that spectrum set aside to sell to AT&T and Verizon’s competitors — current and future — to promote competition. They also support set-asides that make frequencies available for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi.

Genachowski’s proposal could potentially spur private companies or communities to build community-wide Wi-Fi networks operated on unlicensed frequencies. With more robust signals, such high speed wireless networks could be less costly to construct and serve a much wider geographic area.

The potential for competition from the public or private sector is what bothers companies like AT&T and Verizon. Both argue that since they had to pay for their spectrum, allowing other users access to free spectrum would be unfair, both to themselves and to the government’s effort to earn as much as possible from the auction. AT&T has been the more aggressive of the two companies, repeatedly attempting to insert language into legislation curtailing the FCC’s ability to set aside a significant amount of spectrum for unlicensed use. While AT&T’s lobbyists do not go as far as to advocate banning such networks, the technical conditions they demand would make them untenable. AT&T and others also demand the FCC must close down unlicensed networks if they create “harmful interference,” which is open to interpretation.

Helping the wireless companies in the campaign against the next generation of Wi-Fi are hardware manufacturers like Cisco, which has been trying to deep six the proposal for at least two years. Why? Because Cisco’s vision of wireless networking, and the products it has manufactured to date, are not in sync with the kind of longer distance Wi-Fi networks the FCC envisions. Cisco faces overhauling products that were designed under the premise Wi-Fi would remain a limited-range, mostly indoor service for consumers and businesses.

The threat to incumbent Internet Service Providers is clear enough. If a new version of Wi-Fi launched that could blanket entire neighborhoods, communities, non-profits, or even loosely-knit groups of altruistic individuals could launch free Wi-Fi services sharing their Internet connection with others. If the technology allowed users to seamlessly hand off wireless connections from one free Wi-Fi hotspot to another, much like cell sites do today, customers might downgrade their wireless data plans with big telecom companies. Machine-to-machine networking could also rely on Wi-Fi instead of commercial wireless data plans. It could threaten billions in potential revenue.

Stopping these networks is a priority for corporate interests with profits at stake. But one thing they do not have to worry about, at least for now, is the federal government getting into the wireless Internet business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Washington Post FCC offers path to free Internet access 2-4-13.flv[/flv]

After the original story ran in the Post, Cecilia Kang participated in this interview which clarified what the FCC is actually proposing. This video explains what spectrum allocation and unlicensed spectrum is all about. Kang clarifies her article, explaining private companies and/or communities will have to decide what to do with the unlicensed spectrum. The federal government is only facilitating the space and has no plans to run a national network itself. (5 minutes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

AT&T’s WiMAX Internet service in Alaska will be switched off Jan. 31, forcing rural Alaskan customers to find an alternative for inexpensive wireless service in areas where DSL or cable broadband is unavailable.

The company stopped signing up new customers last March and has been repeatedly notifying existing customers they will need to find an alternative service soon.

AT&T is shutting off the aging WiMAX network, which delivered up to 2Mbps service at prices starting at around $20 a month, in favor of newer wireless broadband services, including AT&T’s LTE 4G service and Wi-Fi hot spots.

AT&T is recommending customers switch to one of its mobile broadband plans. But WiMAX customers are likely to experience sticker shock when they see the difference in price.

AT&T charges $40 a month for just 1GB of usage plus an additional $20 a month device fee on its Mobile Share Device Data Plan.