Six months after Hurricane Sandy struck the northeastern United States, a significant number of Verizon customers are now learning they will never get their landline service back.

Mantoloking is the first town in New Jersey — but not the last — that will no longer be able to get landline service from the telephone company.

In its place, Verizon offers Voice Link, a home phone replacement that works exclusively over the Verizon Wireless network.

About 30 customers have signed up for the service after being without a home phone for a half a year.

The device looks like a wireless router, with an antenna and several jacks on the back to deliver service over your home’s existing telephone wiring. Instead of connecting with Verizon’s wired network, the unit receives a signal from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower to make and receive telephone calls.

Verizon is enticing customers to use this device instead of repairing its damaged network by promising free installation, unlimited nationwide calling and support for 911 and basic phone features like Caller ID and voice mail. For now, the service will not cost any more than a wired landline phone.

For Verizon’s bean counters, Voice Link is an inexpensive alternative to replacing copper wiring with FiOS fiber optic service. Verizon previously announced that maintenance on its aging copper wire network was becoming increasingly expensive.

“It acts just like a regular phone,” Tom Maguire, Verizon’s senior vice president of national operations told the Asbury Park Press. “There’s a dial tone. It has 911 capability, so if you dial 911 the emergency services guys are going to know exactly where you are.”

But members of Verizon’s unions who have had hands-on experience testing Voice Link suggest it isn’t everything Verizon says it is. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 824 points out Voice Link was not intended to serve just anybody. It will deliver a voice-only service unsuitable for faxing, DSL, or data communications of any kind.

Mantoloking is located on New Jersey’s barrier island.

Stop the Cap! has also heard from Verizon customers directly affected by the forced migration to wireless, and many are unhappy about it.

“This is the death knell for wired broadband in areas bypassed by cable along coastal New Jersey,” shares Dale Smith. “We lost our Verizon landline and DSL service during Sandy and have had nothing but a cell phone for the last six months because Verizon has dragged its feet.”

Smith says a Verizon manager told him the company was “evaluating certain service areas” for an “exciting new wireless product” instead of repairing or replacing the company’s wired network.

“While they were ‘evaluating,’ we were getting no dial tone and huge cell bills from Verizon — good for them, but not for us.”

Smith had a chance to view Voice Link in action and thinks it represents a Verizon wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“It sounds remarkably better than a cell phone, which tells you something about how much effort manufacturers of smartphones spend on voice calling, but that is where the good ends and the problems begin,” Smith said. “The most annoying is no caller ID with name and fairly frequent call delays and failed calls.”

Smith says the Caller ID displays the caller’s number, but not name – a feature he relied on heavily. He found about 30 percent of test calls either took more than 10 seconds to start ringing, or never rang at all.

“Sometimes the calls would time out and other times you would just sit and listen in silence until the phone at the other end finally started ringing,” Smith said.

He also worries about call reliability.

“What happens if you are in a marginal signal area or the cell tower gets overcongested and starts dropping calls, or the power goes out at the cell tower? You can’t use your cell phone either in that case.”

Anne contacted us after complaining to the Federal Communications Commission that Verizon is dumping its reliable landline network for unreliable wireless, and is frustrated the FCC does not seem to understand what is going on in New York and New Jersey.

“The response from the FCC doesn’t even bother to recognize that Verizon isn’t going to fiber service from copper, but is relying on very unreliable wireless,” Anne tells Stop the Cap! “For a vulnerable area such as the barrier island, wireless will likely be useless during a disaster/big emergency, especially where electricity goes out.”

The FCC’s short response to Anne’s detailed complaint:

If Verizon wishes to replace the copper wiring with fiber it is strictly their business desicion (sic).  — Representative Number : TSR54

“I can’t believe this email is a product of the United States government,” Anne told us. “Why does the FCC exist at all?  It is a complete waste of taxpayer money.”

In addition to filing a complaint with the FCC, Anne has tried to help her elderly mother get her home phone back on the barrier island that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. As of a week ago, every utility, except Verizon phone service, has been restored.

“Trying to get a straight story from Verizon has been impossible,” Anne said. “What a nightmare.”

The landline network is dead.

Jim Mudd also takes care of his parents who are headed back to the New Jersey coast in an area that still lacks Verizon phone service after Sandy washed away utility infrastructure. New poles have been placed and the power is back, but Verizon is nowhere to be found.

“Our local town officials tell us Verizon was hinting we might end up with Voice Link as well, although nothing formal has been announced,” Mudd writes. “This would be a major problem for us, because Voice Link will not work with our home alarm system or my parents’ medical monitoring service.”

Mudd says Verizon confirmed to him that data services of any kind, including faxing or credit card processing is not possible with the first version of the service, although Verizon said it was exploring better options in the future.

“After waiting a half a year for Verizon to restore my home phone, I hope they pardon me for not waiting around for them,” Mudd said. “We signed up with Comcast the moment they got service back, but they know they have a working monopoly here now, especially with Verizon signaling it wants to pull out of anything that is not wireless.”

“What annoys me is Verizon wanted rate increases back in the 1990s and on to pay for upgrading their network and replace it with fiber,” Mudd adds. “We paid those surcharges or higher rates like everyone else and we are going to get nothing to show for it. Don’t replace the copper, but don’t abandon us with wireless either. We paid for something better: fiber.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Asbury Press Following-Sandy-destruction-Verizon-switches-all-wireless-service 5-2-13.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Tom Maguire demonstrates the company’s Voice Link landline replacement, courtesy of the Asbury Park Press.  (1 minute)

Phillip “Friends Can Agree to Disagree” Dampier

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

(Image: MuniNetworks)

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

Tom Wheeler is an admirer of AT&T’s top-lobbyist Jim Cicconi.

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

Not quite

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

AT&T is seeking freedom from regulation, oversight and the right to abandon its landline network with the assistance of Connecticut legislators who modeled a state deregulation measure on recommendations from the corporate-funded, AT&T-backed, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee voted 20-4 to approve the bill, which would eliminate service and oversight requirements and allow the phone company to raise rates. AT&T has lost most of its landline customers since assuming control of service in Connecticut. Today, only 28 percent of homes in the state choose AT&T for their home phone service. The Office of Consumer Counsel suggests AT&T’s poor performance in the state may have had a lot to do with that, citing the company’s slow job of restoring phone service after a series of storms affected the state.

AT&T wants the power to drop telephone service altogether in areas considered unprofitable to repair or continue to serve. A trio of company-backed bills in the state legislature would hand them that right.

House Bills 6401, 6402 and Senate Bill 888 are all measures that would deregulate the phone company and open public lands for placing cell towers, limit regulator oversight and cut reporting requirements that let regulators track telephone rates.

None of the measures have been introduced on a whim, contend critics. The Connecticut Citizen Action Group released a report showing links between corporate-written model bills produced by ALEC and the current legislation before the Connecticut General Assembly.

HB 6401: House Bill 6401 strips the Public Utilities Review Authority (PURA) of their ability to regulate Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone services. An emerging market, this bill creates deregulation for the sake of deregulation.

HB 6402: House Bill 6402 eliminates the right of regulators to oversee AT&T to make sure it has some form of accountability to the public. The section on annual audits has been gutted, making it impossible to protect the public from rate-fixing. More importantly, it includes a provision to allow AT&T to end service to any customer it wants upon 30 days’ written notice.

SB 888: Senate Bill 888 has an ALEC-drafted provision that allows cell phone towers to be built on public lands on a presumption that the will of telecommunications companies is in the interest of the public good.

“If AT&T is allowed to drop service in unprofitable areas at their sole discretion, if they’re allowed to let service outages drag on for weeks with no consequences, if they’re allowed to jack up rates — of course they will,” Daniel Ravizza of Connecticut Citizen Action Group said in a statement. “‘Trust me’ is not a good enough guarantee for Connecticut consumers.”

ALEC and AT&T’s Legislative Chorus

• Rep. Debra Lee Hovey of Monroe and Newtown and Sen. Kevin Witkos of Simsbury, Avon, and Torrington serve as ALEC’s chair people for the state;
• Rep. John Piscopo is currently serving as ALEC’s National Chair;
• Rep. Lonnie Reed (D-Branford), chairwoman of the state legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee defended the measures saying they would give certainty to the telecom industry which would attract more investment in broadband and phone services. But she admitted once consumers learned of the proposed bills, things got heated quickly. “Some of this stuff is radioactive,” she told The Hartford Courant. “It’s hard even if you change the language to convince people otherwise;”
• “The arguments by opponents of HB 6402 have been shown to be without merit so now they’re resorting to desperate measures and innuendo,” said AT&T spokesman Chuck Coursey. “The fact is modernizing our telecom rules this year will help encourage private investment, job growth and consumer choice at a time when Connecticut needs it most;”
• John Emra is AT&T’s chief lobbyist in Connecticut. Emra was behind last year’s attempts to advance similar deregulation. Emra serves as the Executive Director of External Affairs for AT&T and as the chair of ALEC Connecticut.

“This is part of a national strategy by ALEC to advance a pro-corporate agenda at the expense of consumers,” James Browning, regional director of state operations for Common Cause, said in a statement. “We’ve seen the destructive impact these measures have had in other states. AT&T should not be allowed to get away with it here in Connecticut.”

The New Haven Register notes Browning said the three bills — SB888, HB6401 and HB6402 — closely resemble model legislation ALEC’s legislative template used in 20 other states where telecommunications regulatory overhaul has occurred. In 17 of those 20 states, telecommunications rates have increase, and in some cases, the cost of service has doubled.

Connecticut consumers can share their feelings about the bills through e-mail with their elected officials.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam telegraphed his plans to dump rural landline service last summer.

You should believe Verizon Communications CEO Lowell McAdam when he says he intends to end wired telephone and broadband service for areas that are simply not economically feasible for fiber upgrades. McAdam’s grand plan is now coming true for customers in parts of Florida and on Fire Island, N.Y.

Last summer, Stop the Cap! covered McAdam’s comments to Wall Street investors (that are always the first to know) at the Guggenheim Securities Symposium:

“In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE build that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

The writing is already on the wall:

1. Verizon has been penalized and criticized in several states by public utility commissions for the ongoing degradation of its copper network. Verizon sees further investment in copper technology as throwing good money after bad, but spending millions on additional fiber upgrades isn’t appealing either. The result is deteriorating service. From downtown Manhattan to New Jersey to Maryland, D.C. and Virginia, Verizon’s service failures have left customers frustrated and sometimes waiting weeks or months for repair crews to turn up to restore basic phone service. Even more dangerous, Verizon was to blame for significant 911 network failures near the nation’s capital. Post Sandy, there are still sections of lower Manhattan without phone service nearly five months after the storm struck. Five months.
2. Verizon sold off telephone service in northern New England several years ago to FairPoint Communications, knowing full well Verizon never had an interest in upgrading any part of Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine to fiber service. In many smaller former GTE telephone areas too small to successfully argue a case for return on investment, Verizon decided selling those territories off was the best option. Hawaiian Telcom and Frontier Communications now own many of those former-Verizon territories.
3. Verizon has decreased marketing its wired DSL service and stopped selling it altogether to customers who want broadband-only service. That seems counter-intuitive for a company that recognizes future revenue possibilities come primarily from broadband and data services.

Traditionally, customers reporting trouble on a phone line get a visit from Verizon technicians who track the problem down and repair it. But Verizon no longer wants to spend money fixing copper wire-related problems. Customers reporting chronic phone static or outages are now being asked to abandon their traditional landline service instead:

• In areas where Verizon FiOS fiber is available, the company disconnects the customer from copper service and switches them to the FiOS fiber network. This also provides future marketing opportunities, pitching broadband and television service to accompany a customer’s home phone. 
• In areas where fiber upgrades are not forthcoming, the company now proposes to disconnect the customer in favor of Voice Link, a wireless home phone replacement. This also opens marketing opportunities for Verizon Wireless to pitch cell phones and wireless Internet service.

The end of an era.

Customers who live in Florida currently have a choice. During the trial, they can switch to Voice Link or keep their current landline service. On Fire Island, just south of Long Island, customers will not have that choice. Verizon is testing the will of New York regulators asked to allow the company to gradually abandon landline and wired Internet facilities on the island. Customers previously knocked out by Hurricane Sandy have no alternative — switch to a wireless option like Voice Link or lose  telephone service. As the network degrades further on the island, it is a safe bet more Fire Island residents will find themselves confronted with a wireless future courtesy of Voice Link.

Verizon is careful to note its Voice Link service comes at no additional cost to customers — their phone bills will remain the same, at least for now. But the transition includes several important caveats:

1. Voice Link is not subject to state or federal oversight or quality of service consumer protection laws that apply to traditional landline service;
2. The customer is responsible for providing an indoor space to mount the equipment (hardly unobtrusive, the receiver is eight inches tall) and provide electric power and AA batteries for battery backup;
3. Voice Link does not work with any data services including broadband or dial-up Internet, faxing, medical monitoring, alarm systems, etc. You will be pitched an expensive Verizon Wireless data plan if you want Internet access;
4. During recent severe storms, copper landline networks often continued to work but cell phone service failed over wide areas because of call congestion and  long-term power outages. Similar failures will leave Voice Link non-operational;
5. Voice Link customers lose DSL service and may have little chance of getting it back once they switch.

Verizon’s solution for Fire Island represents the long-term vision of McAdam coming to fruition. Complaining customers have not been able to persuade the company to abandon its plan, but New York State regulators might, if the issue gets enough attention.

In states with less aggressive regulators, Verizon could implement its Fire Island strategy nearly at-will, especially in rural service areas. Verizon’s plan differs little from that of AT&T, another major service provider seeking permission from regulators to abandon rural landline networks. AT&T is betting the Federal Communications Commission will approve AT&T’s “network transition plan” for all of its rural customers. Verizon is starting smaller, gradually implementing its transition under the radar of many state and federal officials.

AT&T wants to wind down its own rural landline network.

So why adopt Voice Link — a wireless solution, when copper wire network repairs remain a viable option?

The reasons are simple:

1. Voice Link is cheaper to run and maintain as a wireless service and uses existing Verizon Wireless cell towers;
2. Verizon can further cut their unionized workforce that maintains the company’s landline network;
3. Wireless products escape regulatory oversight;
4. The company can push customers to wireless data products that cost far more than wired DSL broadband service;
5. Verizon doesn’t have to upgrade the rest of their network to fiber.

Customers in Verizon service areas should appeal to regulators and their elected officials to stop the abandonment of wired infrastructure. Verizon argues maintaining its network doesn’t make sense when customers are fleeing their landlines. But rural customers are not disconnecting broadband service that travels across the same network. Even basic DSL is coveted in rural Verizon territories where Internet access remains unavailable. Just about everyone wants the option of FiOS fiber, perhaps the most coveted network upgrade around until Google announced its gigabit fiber project in Kansas City.

Nobody wants Verizon or AT&T to keep up its copper wire facilities indefinitely. But a better solution would be a regulatory mandate that requires Verizon and AT&T to gradually replace antiquated and failing copper infrastructure with fiber wherever possible. It is more than possible to do this on Fire Island. Verizon’s service area in Florida is hardly rural either. Verizon Florida (formerly GTE Telephone) serves Tampa-St. Petersburg east to Lake Wales, a major metropolitan region in central Florida.

What is best for shareholders should not be the final determining factor for an important utility service. If customers prefer the option of Voice Link for home phone service, there is nothing wrong with that. But wireless service as the only option customers have for broadband service? Not at Verizon Wireless’ prices.

Verizon officials have announced they will abandon their damaged wireline network serving several hundred permanent residents and businesses on Fire Island, replacing voice telephone service with a wireless system called Voice Link critics say will end high-speed Internet service and hurt business.

Fire Island’s landline network has been barely functional since Hurricane Sandy struck last October. Verizon has yet to make significant repairs, leading to ongoing complaints from residents who live on the island year-round. Verizon’s wish to eventually abandon its wired network facilities entirely has created concern among island officials and public safety agencies, noting the summer population on the island swells well into the thousands.

Verizon’s plan may leave businesses unable to process credit card transactions and prevent residents from getting back DSL broadband service they lost during the storm, much less get it in the future. For some, it represents turning the clock back to the days before Internet access.

“Verizon has given us a dial tone basically,” Ocean Beach Mayor James Mallott told Newsday. “But as far as DSL, ATMs, point-of-sale systems, all the rest of that stuff, we’re pretty much on our own.”

Fire Island resident Meg Wallace notes Verizon’s plan has not gone unnoticed by the New York State Public Service Commission. The PSC is currently monitoring the situation and invites comments from interested parties.

“Right now, only Saltaire has filed a formal complaint with them, along with one village’s fire official,” Wallace reports. “It is easy to register a complaint either by filling out a complaint form on their website or calling the NYSPSC directly at (800) 342-3377. They are concerned about public opinion, so the more calls and formal complaints filed by both home and business owners the better.”

Verizon officials have defended their decision, claiming a wireless system is more robust and can withstand severe weather better than a wired network. Another reality impacting the decision is the ongoing loss of landline customers. Verizon, the sole provider on the island, has lost 25 percent of its landline business in the last two years. The company claims 80 percent of Verizon-handled calls to and from the island are through Verizon Wireless.

Fire Island

Verizon told local officials that Cherry Grove and points east still have undamaged fiber optic and copper lines that should be able to work as usual this summer and will be left in place for now. On the west end of the island  from Kismet to Sailor’s Haven, the damage was more significant and Verizon has announced its intention to abandon wired service.

Although west end customers will be scheduled for Voice Link installations starting in April, those on the east side should not get too comfortable with their wired service because Verizon has announced it will not upgrade or make future significant repairs to its wired infrastructure going forward. When the remaining landline facilities eventually fail, affected customers will also be moved to Voice Link.

How It Works

Starting April 1st, customers calling with service problems on Fire Island will be redirected to special operators trained to pitch customers the Voice Link service as a replacement. These agents will also handle billing adjustments and drop phone package features Voice Link does not support. If the customer only wants phone service, Verizon will schedule an installation date for Voice Link. A technician will arrive with a wall-mounted box about 8″ high that will be installed in the room that provides the best reception from a nearby Verizon Wireless tower. The box will then be connected to your home telephone wiring and a nearby power outlet so existing telephones will work once again. The box has battery backup powered by customer-installed and maintained AA batteries.

If a customer also had broadband service with Verizon, they will not be getting it back. Instead, an agent will attempt to sell the customer a Verizon Wireless mobile broadband package at a significantly higher cost. For example, a 10GB monthly usage plan added to an existing Verizon Wireless account will cost an extra $20 a month for the “Mi-Fi” mobile hotspot device fee and $100 a month for the data package. Verizon DSL in comparison offered unlimited access for $30-50 a month, depending on the plan selected and any promotional discounts.

Verizon said it is currently improving reception of its 4G LTE network in areas worst-affected by storm damage.

Voice Link is a voice-only product. It does not support broadband, telephone modem connections, faxing, alarm monitoring, home medical monitoring, certain communications equipment for the impaired, or other data services including credit card processing. It does support E911, which gives detailed address information to a 911 operator.

Verizon’s Voice Link also creates a problem for some satellite dish customers. Some satellite companies need a landline connection for handling pay-per-view orders. That data connection does not work with Voice Link either.

Your voice line bill will remain the same if you switch to Voice Link. But customers will lose the benefit of oversight from the Public Service Commission if things go wrong. Voice Link, unlike traditional landline service, is an unregulated service not subject to government oversight.

Voice Link: Coming Soon to Your Area?

Verizon’s Voice Link service is by no means intended to be used only on Fire Island.

Voice Link is being trialed in Florida (Project Thunder) as a landline replacement option for use in areas where Verizon’s copper network has deteriorated and the company is unwilling to spend money on fiber upgrades. If successful, Verizon intends to switch a growing number of Verizon customers nationwide outside of FiOS fiber areas to the wireless service when they report trouble with their phone lines.

Local 824 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers provided insight when one of their workers attended a training class and participated in a ride-along with Verizon technicians installing the service in Florida.

John Glye reports that Verizon considers a customer a candidate for Voice Link if they have chronic phone line problems and only want traditional voice telephone service.

Currently, if customers in Florida are persuaded to switch, a migration order is created. If they want to keep the service they have, a traditional copper trouble ticket will be created and repair crews will be dispatched.

The unit is about eight inches tall and has the following connections:

• 2 RJ 11 ports
• Antenna
• Voice Message indicator
• Signal strength indicator
• Power Button
• Power Port

Installation time is about 45 minutes. The unit must be mounted inside and the customer must supply power and a safe place for the unit. The customer’s existing copper line connection from the home to the pole is disconnected/removed. In the ride-along Glye participated in, he reports the customer was pleased with the outcome, having reported constant static aggravated by rain on her copper landline. After the wireless service was installed, the static was gone and the call quality was good.