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.

Africa’s international Internet connectivity is primarily provided by underseas fiber cables. (Map: Steve Song)

One of the most common arguments pro-capping telecom companies use is since the rest of the world has already adopted consumption billing for broadband, why can’t North American ISPs follow in their footsteps. But ISPs around the world are actually heading away from capped, throttled, or nickle-and-dime broadband pricing towards flat rate, unlimited service.

The Republic of South Africa is a case in point. Located on the southeastern tip of the African continent, South Africa has faced down a number of broadband challenges. Antiquated infrastructure lacking investment in upgrades, political and economic challenges, and very costly, limited capacity international connectivity have all conspired to leave the country with poor broadband service.

The biggest problem domestically is deteriorating landline infrastructure, leaving most South Africans with slow speed ADSL service. Wireless mobile broadband has proved less costly to deploy, but connectivity costs remain high regardless of how customers obtain service because of international bottlenecks.

South Africa’s problems are similar to those faced in South Pacific nations like Australia and New Zealand. Data caps have been a fact of life for years, primarily because there has never been sufficient capacity on underseas fiber and satellite links to sustain anticipated traffic if the caps were removed. But those problems are starting to ease as new high capacity backbone connections continue to come online.

Heavily capped broadband transforms how people use the Internet. In all three nations, many people do their heaviest web surfing at work over business connections. Some ISPs ease their usage caps or speed throttles during low-demand overnight hours, leaving many to hold off on significant file transfers and software updates until most people have gone to bed.

Regardless of whether you live in Johannesburg, Adelaide, or Wellington, people hate data caps and speed throttles and cannot wait to be rid of them.

That day has come in South Africa. Telkom, the former state-owned telephone company, has announced dramatic price cuts and relaxation of speed throttles for customers choosing its unlimited ADSL offerings. The company has announced a 40% price cut for residential customers and a 35% cut for business customers that took effect Feb. 1. Speed throttles that used to block international traffic when customers were deemed to be “using too much” are also being removed, although Telkom can still reduce speeds for their heaviest users.

Speeds are still very slow compared to what most North Americans can receive, but the average South African can now purchase unlimited 4Mbps ADSL for around $42 a month. A 10Mbps account remains out of reach for many at an unaffordable $157 a month. Some of Telkom’s competitors sell unthrottled and unlimited 1Mbps service for a budget-priced $22 a month.

South African ISPs are managing to achieve speed increases, but the primary bottleneck remains Telkom’s aging copper wire infrastructure. The answer is more fiber links further out in telephone exchanges and reducing the amount of copper customers have between their homes and Telkom’s central exchange offices. Although urban residents in relatively prosperous areas can achieve faster speeds, South Africa’s large expanse of low income areas often rely on prepaid wireless services because wired infrastructure is often sub-standard.

International capacity concerns will continue to ease as new underseas fiber cables are brought online. By 2014, one new underseas fiber cable will be able to carry more Internet traffic than all of the currently operational cables preceding it combined.

The Internet Innovation Alliance this week unveiled its 2013 Broadband Guide to the 113th Congress, outlining recommendations for a better broadband future that just so happen to fall in step with AT&T’s lobbying action agenda, guaranteeing near-total telecom deregulation and abandoning rural America’s wired telecommunications networks.

That should come as no surprise, because the IIA’s principal backer is AT&T, along with a host of public interest and non-profit groups that have received significant contributions and backing from the phone giant.

The IIA’s chief recommendation: allow phone companies to abandon wired landline networks in favor of all-IP-based technologies that escape most regulatory requirements and are not subject to much oversight by local, state, or federal officials.

The IIA guide unintentionally illustrates that AT&T’s largest service area in the central and southern U.S. has some of the lowest broadband rankings in the country.

In order for consumers to enjoy the speed and bandwidth capacity of IP networks and to take advantage of the programs and services (including education, gaming, entertainment, social media) that require fast and robust data transmission, the United States should encourage the upgrade to a digital, all-Internet Protocol (IP) broadband infrastructure. Current legacy wired networks fail to meet the FCC’s definition of broadband, yet outdated laws essentially assume that incumbent telephone companies continue to maintain and operate these slow, antiquated networks, even as incumbents invest and deploy separate IP infrastructure and fewer and fewer consumers rely on the outdated voice-only networks.

Requiring incumbent telephone providers to maintain costly antiquated networks siphons investment away from deployment of advanced, high-speed next-generation IP-based networks that consumers prefer. Reforming antiquated 1930s regulations designed for monopoly providers in a copper-wire, analog era will encourage the private sector investment needed to upgrade non-IP-based facilities with newer and faster broadband infrastructure, creating jobs and growing our economy.

In addition, today’s 4G LTE wireless networks are IP-based, but the spectrum required to fuel consumers’ advanced wireless devices on these networks is becoming severely congested. Releasing more spectrum, the radio waves that carry everything from television to texts to mobile video, is necessary to maintain and improve service quality on wireless networks. The government controls the allocation of spectrum and should reallocate more of it for consumer use in order to sustain the increasing public demand for data and continue the benefits offered by the mobile revolution.

Nowhere in IIA’s guide does the “Alliance” disclose its largest backer is AT&T, one of the “telephone providers” IIA talks about as if it was a third party that had no direct connection to the group.

IIA’s guide takes care not to come down too hard on its benefactor for not upgrading rural telecommunications networks to support next generation broadband. In fact, AT&T has dragged its feet providing even ordinary DSL service in many of its rural service areas. The IIA is also careful not to disclose AT&T’s real plan: not to upgrade existing networks to fiber but rather abandon them altogether in favor of its high-profit, high revenue wireless service. That assures everyone deemed unworthy of wired broadband investment will be relegated to the company’s high-cost wireless platform with paltry usage caps and speed throttles.

At the start of 2013, we are witnessing exciting changes enabled by mobile broadband: an app economy that didn’t even exist five years ago now employs more than 500,000 Americans, according to Economist Michael Mandel; the inexorable shift to the cloud and its more efficient information storage; proliferating creative tools that are transforming consumers’ business and personal lives; rapacious appetite for faster speeds, greater bandwidth opportunity and more capacious storage; overwhelming competition with 90 percent of consumers able to choose from at least five different providers, as reported by the FCC; and accelerating innovation cycles where tomorrow’s technology is invented today. The future of broadband is bright and the benefits to consumers and our nation could be boundless. To realize these benefits we need only to let our innovators innovate, our entrepreneurs compete, and ensure our consumers have the knowledge and freedom to make the most of the technology available to them.

…and let AT&T do whatever and charge whatever it wants, while depriving rural America of a wired broadband future.

The IIA hopes its message gets through to members of Congress. Helping make that happen are two former Washington, D.C. insiders that have bipartisan support for AT&T’s agenda.

“We love technology here and believe in its power to change the country, the world, and that it’s a non-partisan issue,” gushes Bruce Mehlman, IIA’s founding co-chairman and former assistant secretary of commerce for technology policy in the George W. Bush Administration.

Mehlman was recognized by Washingtonian Magazine as one of the city’s top lobbyists and is a founding partner of his own lobbying firm. Mehlman is considered an expert in running issue campaigns and “developing advanced lobbying strategies that achieve impactful policy outcomes.” At least AT&T hopes so.

Mehlman’s D.C. lobbying firm promises “we get things done in Washington.”

“It’s critical that policymakers be well-informed as they make decisions affecting the Internet in order to promote and encourage the expansion of Internet investment, access and adoption,” echoed IIA honorary chairman Rick Boucher, a former Democratic member of Congress from the state of Virginia.

Boucher has never strayed too far from AT&T money either. AT&T was his third largest contributor overall from 1989 until he lost re-election in 2010. Today, Boucher is a partner in the law firm of Sidley Austin, which has represented AT&T’s interests for over 100 years.

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.

Efforts to develop new unlicensed uses for the public airwaves that include high-powered public Wi-Fi may be shelved if AT&T and House Republicans succeed in their joint effort to force those frequencies to be sold in a spectrum auction.

Majority House Republicans on the House Communications & Technology Subcommittee on Wednesday lectured all five FCC commissioners, insisting they have no authority to set aside spectrum specifically for unlicensed use when those airwaves could be sold to private companies.

Sub-Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) criticized FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his plans to “give away” scarce airwaves eventually open to the public’s use when they could fetch as much as $19 billion in auction proceeds from large telecommunications companies seeking to own and control those frequencies.

Walden, the House’s second largest recipient of campaign contributions from the same companies likely to bid on that spectrum, insisted federal law only allows the Commission to designate unlicensed uses for so-called “technically necessary guard bands,” which act as a buffer between neighboring frequency users to protect against interference. Walden also criticized the FCC for setting aside too much spectrum for that protection.

Walden, the second largest recipient of telco cash in Congress.

The Oregon congressman has collected more than $84,000 in campaign contributions from telephone companies so far this year. Only House Speaker John Boehner won larger contributions from companies like AT&T.

Other Republican members of the subcommittee agreed with Walden’s sentiment and also received generous contributions from AT&T this year.

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), wanted to be sure the FCC does not impose “value-sapping restrictions” on the use of privately-owned airwaves owned by large telecommunications companies. Terry is the third largest recipient of campaign contributions in the House from those telecom companies, adding $69,400 so far this year to his campaign coffers.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) expressed concerns that spectrum auctions could displace low-power television stations to make way for mobile communications. But Barton did not oppose the auctions generally. His largest contributor: AT&T, which sent him checks for more than $21,000 in 2012.

Representative Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio) suggested auctioning off airwaves intended for public use to large mobile broadband companies would help America’s competitiveness, alluding to his belief unlicensed, free use of the airwaves for new wireless applications would not. Latta cashed $10,500 in AT&T checks so far this year — his fourth largest contributor. Latta added he wanted there to be transparency and openness in the entire spectrum process. He did not disclose his significant contributions from AT&T at the hearing, despite being a chief stakeholder in the debate.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) agreed with large telecommunications companies that the maximum amount of available spectrum should be sold off to private companies to sell mobile broadband services to the public. Blackburn’s third largest campaign contributor this year is Verizon Communications, who sent her $15,400. AT&T, her ninth largest contributor, handed her $13,250, together adding up to $28,650.

The Democrats on the panel roundly criticized Republican plans to sell off spectrum intended for unlicensed, public use applications to large wireless companies, which already own and control frequencies they still have not put into service.

Terry, worried about “value-sapping” regulations.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called unlicensed spectrum an incredible economic success story.

“Innovative services like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are now ubiquitous parts of our communications system,” he said in his opening remarks. “They came about because of the use of unlicensed spectrum.”

Waxman suggested eliminating or limiting unlicensed spectrum would destroy innovation and further concentrate wireless communications in the hands of a handful of companies. Waxman said Congress’ original intent in passing laws that permitted the FCC to move forward with spectrum auctions also authorize the agency to protect competition and prevent unnecessary concentration of spectrum ownership to the detriment of smaller providers.

“I am troubled by attempts by some to relitigate issues that were resolved earlier this year, when the bill passed Congress with widespread support,” Waxman added. “After-the-fact-spin that unfairly twists the language of the law deserves little weight by the Commission or the courts.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) noted the FCC by statute is prohibited from considering the amount of revenue possible from spectrum auctions when drafting auction rules. She found Republican efforts to recast those rules to raise as much money as possible by selling off as much spectrum as possible “interesting.”

Many Republicans also complained the FCC must not set rules that either limit the maximum amount of spectrum owned by one company or set aside certain frequencies exclusively for smaller competitors. The Republicans want auctions to maintain a more straightforward “highest bidder takes all” format. Critics say that gives the advantage to larger, deep-pocketed existing providers and dissuades the entry of new competitors.

Some Republicans were also upset with FCC meddling over when and how private companies begin providing service on the airwaves they won at auction. Current FCC rules prohibit warehousing unused spectrum. The rules were designed to ensure large companies don’t invest in airwaves just to keep them off the market and unavailable to competitors.