Coming soon nationwide? Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and CenturyLink sure hope not.

Verizon is talking to major cable programmers about launching a nationwide version of FiOS TV as an over-the-top video service that works with your existing broadband provider.

The NY Post reports Verizon is looking at launching an online pay television service for customers without installing additional fiber optic lines to deliver it.

The service would likely be an extension of the “TV Everywhere” online video platforms that many national cable and telco-TV providers already offer existing cable TV subscribers. What would make Verizon’s offer radically different is selling the virtual cable TV service in areas where it does not offer FiOS service.

Verizon must carefully negotiate with programmers to distribute networks over an online video service that would likely compete directly with those programmers’ best customers: cable operators and telco IPTV services like U-verse and Prism TV.

The concept was rejected out of hand Wednesday by Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus, who agreed with Comcast executive vice president Steve Burke’s contention that “over the top” video services that offer virtual cable television outside of their respective service areas lacked a compelling business model and would be difficult to monetize.

“At this point we don’t really aspire to delivering an over-the-top service,” Marcus said. “Our value proposition is delivering video via our facilities as opposed to being a retailer of somebody else’s video, which is a somewhat commoditized product.”

Neither cable executive mentioned the fact cable operators have also maintained an informal “wink and nod” agreement to steer clear of head-on competition with each other for decades.

Verizon: The next big supporter of Net Neutrality?

Verizon apparently wants to shake things up and sell online video without incurring the cost of expanding its fiber optic network FiOS to deliver it.

“They’ve had exploratory talks about how to become a virtual [multiple-system operator],” one person close to the conversations told the Post. “It’s a question of how to get there.”

Interestingly, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam is worried about developing the service without Net Neutrality protection or some other form of government oversight of broadband. Verizon could spend millions to negotiate programming contracts only to find competitors with their own TV packages to protect outmaneuvering the venture. Without Net Neutrality, Verizon could find its service blocked by competitors or made untenable with the implementation of broadband usage caps or consumption billing that would make a subscription too costly to consider.

The company is now trying to figure out exactly which branch of government (or agency) controls broadband policy in the nation.

The FCC’s current Net Neutrality policy depends on a shaky regulatory framework now being challenged in federal court.

Verizon declined to comment.

Verizon Communications notified the New York Public Service Commission late Tuesday it was abandoning a request to replace damaged landlines anywhere in the state where the company’s facilities were substantially destroyed with a wireless service called Voice Link.

Verizon’s original tariff, if approved, would have allowed the company to drop landline service in areas of New York where it decided it was impractical to repair or replace heavily damaged wired infrastructure. Customers in these areas would no longer be able to obtain wired landline service or DSL broadband. Instead, under the original tariff request, Verizon would offer customers Voice Link as its sole service offering, providing voice-only service over existing telephones, assuming a good signal was available from a nearby Verizon Wireless cell tower.

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reported a well-placed source in Albany indicated Verizon was unlikely to win approval of its tariff request after a summer of real-world experiences with Voice Link service on Fire Island. Customers overwhelmingly rejected the service, complaining about dropped and missed calls, poor voice quality, and the lack of an affordable broadband option. Yesterday, Verizon separately announced it was reversing an earlier decision and would now install its fiber network FiOS on Fire Island, offering customers the option of keeping Voice Link or switching to FiOS for telephone and/or broadband service.

Accordingly, Verizon today requested the PSC abandon proceedings regarding its request, calling the issue “moot,” and for now will no longer pursue an effort to drop landline service in New York. Verizon will continue to offer Voice Link in the state as an optional service, but will also provide traditional landline and DSL service (where available).

Verizon has not said whether it will continue to pursue regulators for permission to supply Voice Link as its sole service offering in part of New Jersey and Pennsylvania where the company’s landline networks were damaged by last year’s Hurricane Sandy.

Verizon FiOS is coming to Fire Island.

Verizon Communications has thrown in the beach towel attempting to convince residents of popular tourist destination Fire Island to accept its wireless landline replacement Voice Link as the company’s sole landline service option.

After telling customers for months it did not make financial sense to restore copper service or bring its fiber optic network FiOS to Fire Island, Verizon senior vice president of national operations support Tom Maguire today reversed course.

“In today’s competitive marketplace it’s all about making sure you can take care of customers because if you don’t they can go someplace else,” Maguire told Newsday. “Interestingly on Fire Island, there is no place else, so we listened to our customers. It was pretty apparent that we wanted to do something beyond Voice Link and the wireless network, so we think that fiber is the best course.”

Verizon customers on Fire Island have told Stop the Cap! all summer they felt abandoned by Verizon, stuck using a wireless landline replacement service they claimed worked poorly or not at all at times. Customers also loudly complained that Verizon was effectively forcing broadband customers who depended on Verizon DSL to the much more expensive Verizon Wireless broadband service with a very small usage cap. Many attended meetings sponsored by elected officials or the Public Service Commission to decry Voice Link and demand Verizon offer the same quality service its landline network used to provide.

Maguire told the newspaper the company will now deploy its fiber network FiOS on Fire Island, offering residents new options for telephone and broadband service. The 600 customers on Fire Island with Voice Link will be able to keep the wireless service or switch to FiOS fiber.

Reached for comment, Verizon tells Stop the Cap! its fiber service will not include FiOS TV because Verizon does not have franchise agreements with the many municipalities on Fire Island, and their primary concern is getting the fiber network engineered and constructed.

Schumer

Fire Island residents have made it clear to Verizon their biggest concern is Internet access, not television, and Verizon FiOS will be able to deliver faster Internet speeds unavailable from DSL.

Verizon expects to begin construction in October, although it has already started preliminary design work for the new fiber network. Verizon expects to have the fiber build complete by the beginning of the 2014 summer season on the island.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been carefully monitoring the Voice Link issue, released a statement welcoming Verizon’s decision.

“By installing fiber-optic cables on the island, Verizon will not only make the system as good as it was before, it will be making it better,” said Schumer. “Fire Island residents will now have greater access to high-speed Internet – a necessity in the modern age – and reliable voice service. Verizon deserves credit for listening to our concerns and changing course.”

In a June guest article written for publication on Stop the Cap!, Maguire wrote it would cost Verizon from $4.8 million to more than $6 million to restore landline service. Maguire argued it made no economic sense to commit to a multimillion dollar investment with no guarantee that residents of the island will sign up for Verizon service.

“That’s probably why Verizon is the sole provider on the island,” Maguire noted in the piece. “None of the companies we compete with in other parts of New York offer services on the island.”

Today’s decision represents a complete reversal of the company’s earlier views, but one that is welcomed nonetheless by residents on Fire Island reached by Stop the Cap! this afternoon.

“We’re very glad this is now over and behind us,” said Verizon customer Shari who has toughed out the summer with cellphone-only service.

“I can’t wait to return Voice Link, which has been a real pain,” said Thom.

Both customers tell Stop the Cap! they intend to sign up for Verizon FiOS the moment it becomes available.

Verizon Voice Link – Not good enough for New York, says our source.

A well-placed source in Albany tells Stop the Cap! Verizon’s Voice Link, a wireless landline replacement,  is unlikely to be approved as a sole landline offering in New York State.

“With mounting evidence supplied by Verizon itself in response to staff requests and increasing pressure from local, state, and federal politicians hearing the concerns of more than 500 New York residents that have opposed Verizon’s proposal or who have complained about the quality of service provided by Voice Link over the summer, it is increasingly clear the service in its current form will fail to meet the Public Service Commission’s standard for basic voice service,” the well-informed source tells Stop the Cap!

“It is important to recognize that the PSC’s primary concern is providing an equivalent voice service that has the reliability required to reach emergency personnel and deliver ancillary services the disabled community depends on,” said the source. “While the Commission is unlikely to reject Verizon Voice Link as an alternative, optional service, the Commission cannot and signaled to our office it will not ignore the consensus from real Voice Link users complaining the service is not well received and reliability issues have persisted all summer.”

Verizon has attempted to place Voice Link in the homes of residents on the western half of Fire Island as its sole service offering for landline service, while in other communities upstate the company claims it offers Voice Link as an optional service for customers with line problems or for those requesting seasonal telephone service.

The source tells us the sticking point for regulators is Verizon’s request to offer Voice Link as its sole service offering, denying requests to repair existing landline service, as has been the case on the western half of Fire Island since Superstorm Sandy damaged much of the infrastructure on that half of the island almost one year ago.

Verizon officials claim the costs to re-establish wireline copper phone service on the island do not make financial sense based on the small number of customers served, and the company adds there is no business case for upgrading to fiber service either. But residents and some local officials claim Verizon has exaggerated the amount of damage, and many customers in the affected area still have intermittent service, but cannot get Verizon repair crews to repair trouble on partly functional lines.

The PSC has received more 650 comments to date about Verizon Voice Link — all negative — and has also heard from New York politicians who are strongly opposed to Verizon’s efforts to curtail landline service in the state. Our source tells us some of those politicians were moved by constituents who placed calls over Voice Link to officials in Albany and Washington to let them to hear the actual voice quality of the service. The source tells us the quality of those calls were often plagued with audio anomalies and breakups.

Last week, the Commission requested Verizon send a functional Voice Link unit for internal testing, but that request may now be a formality, according to our source.

“I think the decision is mostly made at this point,” said the source. “It is pretty clear the PSC is signaling to complaining politicians and through its repeated requests for information from Verizon it is unconvinced by Verizon’s arguments that claim there is a necessity to replace landline service with wireless Voice Link, and the company also did itself no favors when its executives previewed plans to abandon landline service in favor of wireless in unprofitable areas even before Sandy struck,” the source tells us. “Verizon isn’t stupid, so it is likely the company will offer something different before their request is turned down.”

Verizon said this afternoon it had no comment on Stop the Cap!’s report.

AT&T’s latest effort to rid itself of universal service obligations and a commitment to offer discounted phone service to more than one million low-income Californians has been temporarily stopped in the state legislature after advocates for the poor objected to the bill.

AB 1407 would have made major changes to the state’s regulations governing LifeLine, the low-cost phone service for the poor. In its place, both AT&T and Verizon advocated a voucher program that would effectively raise rates for everyone, gut regulatory authority to limit future rate hikes, and open a loophole that could allow phone companies to unilaterally abandon landline service in favor of wireless.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), would drop the current LifeLine program offering landline service at rates not to exceed $6.84 a month and replace it with a fixed amount voucher worth $11.85 a month that could be applied to reduce a wireless or landline provider bill. AT&T says the proposal will make it easier for consumers to adopt wireless LifeLine phone service and cut burdensome oversight and rate regulations.

Consumer groups argue the legislation delivers all of its benefits to phone companies like AT&T while eliminating consumer protection regulations. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also complained the bill could end guaranteed quality landline service, potentially permitting AT&T and other companies to stop providing wired phone service and force customers to wireless services instead.

The little-known and less understood bill moved quickly through the Democratic-controlled legislature over the summer and on July 9, AB 1407 passed a key Senate committee in a 6-1 vote, well on the way to passage in the state Senate. Consumer groups and low-income advocates learned of the bill and launched a broad-based opposition campaign including the Coalition for Economic Survival, AARP, the California Labor Federation and The Utility Reform Network. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a tea party group that vigilantly monitors the state legislature for attempts to circumvent Proposition 13 limits on tax hikes, also opposed the measure because it adds a 3.3% state-mandated surcharge on all intrastate telephone services, also applicable to Voice over IP providers.

AT&T found a good friend in Bradford, who has advocated for the company’s interests since AT&T became his biggest campaign contributor by far, donating more than $40,000 to his re-election coffers.

Bradford

Larry Gross of the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Economic Survival described Bradford as a “front person for AT&T.”

Bradford and AT&T’s lobbyists, dominating earlier discussions on AB 1407, were overrun at an Aug. 19 hearing when a group of tenants from San Francisco’s Central City SRO Collaborative (CCSRO) appeared and opposed the bill and its impact on the poor.

BeyondChron noted Bradford was so confident about the momentum his AT&T-ghost-written bill had received, he waived his testimony. Minutes later, he discovered the growing number of speakers lined up to oppose the bill. Bradford then attempted to rebut the surprising opposition, but it was too late. The tenants persuaded the majority on the Senate Appropriations Committee to suspend further consideration of the bill for now.

The proposed legislation had support from a number of elected officials, almost all recipients of AT&T campaign contributions.

Nearly all the non-profit groups supporting AB 1407 also received direct financial support from AT&T and/or Verizon. Among the first 20 supporters investigated by Stop the Cap!, all but a few turned out to have direct financial ties to either AT&T, Verizon, or both:

Verizon is linked from COFEM’s home page.

• Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association: AT&T is a “major sponsor.”
• Bakersfield Homeless Center: AT&T is a funding partner.
• Brotherhood Crusade: AT&T is a “silver partner.” Verizon, which also supports the measure, is a “platinum” donor.
• California Black Chamber of Commerce: Verizon is a “corporate member.”
• California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: AT&T is a corporate member.
• California Partnership to End Domestic Violence: Verizon cut them a check for $130,000 to become a partner.
• Center for Fathers and Families: AT&T is a sponsor.
• COFEM: Verizon is so important to their mission, the company’s logo is on the group’s home page.
• Community Youth Center of San Francisco: AT&T is a “diamond sponsor.”
• Congress of California Seniors: Verizon is one of their “key sponsors.”
• Eskaton Foundation: AT&T is a “level 3” donor.
• Florence Douglas Senior Center: AT&T is a “primary sponsor.”

We stopped looking after researching the first 20 groups, but it is highly likely the others will also have similar ties.

Although Assemblyman Bradford repeatedly has claimed there is no intent to eliminate or diminish universal service “Carrier of Last Resort (COLR)” obligations that require basic phone service be provided to any California resident requesting it, the CPUC found ambiguous language in the bill that muddies the author’s intent. One section of AB 1407 states that “any lifeline provider, including a local exchange carrier, may use any technology, or multiple technologies, within the provider’s service territory.” This could be interpreted to allow a provider to meet its basic service obligation with wireless technology that may not meet the CPUC’s definition of basic landline service.

The legislation repeatedly states LifeLine providers should only be obligated to offer the minimum service elements as required by the FCC. Those provisions ignore the CPUC’s own rules and AT&T could theoretically prevent a wireless LifeLine customer from switching back to landline service because the wireless alternative is considered good enough.

Other provisions in the bill are tailored primarily for the benefit of wireless providers, including AT&T, and introduce new fees and charges for services that many customers would assume are included in the price of basic service:

• Flat rate local calling is eliminated;
• Providers can charge customers extra or deduct wireless minutes for 911 calls, calls to toll-free 800-type numbers, and incoming calls of all kinds;
• Providers can require a deposit for LifeLine customers and all former exemptions from taxes, surcharges and fees are canceled;
• The requirement to provide a toll-free method to reach customer service is eliminated;
• Providers can charge extra or deduct minutes for use of the California 711 Relay Service;
• Provisions requiring providers to offer surcharge-free outgoing calling service, touch-tone dialing, directory assistance (for LifeLine customers), access to an operator, a listing in the telephone directory, and a copy of the White Pages are eliminated.

The bill is probably shelved for the rest of this year but will likely return for consideration in 2014.