The AT&T technology transitions pilot in the wire centers of Carbon Hill, Alabama and West Delray Beach, Florida, will be used by the FCC to evaluate the transition to an Internet Protocol (IP) network. The experiment will provide a real-world laboratory for the Commission and help it to develop policies to ensure that the values of the time division multiplexed (TDM) network, (such as universal service, access to 911, etc) continue even with the change in network technology. 

Naturally, wholesale providers have had concerns that replacements for special access and other TDM services have not been sufficiently fleshed out. Unexpectedly, the experiment has also stirred up a dispute between consumer groups and ILECs regarding allegations that ILECs are forcing customers off traditional copper-based phone service and on to fiber- based IP service even if the new technology is more expensive and does not meet all of the needs of the customer. ILECs deny these allegations.

One would think that the migration of end users from the copper TDM network to the fiber-based IP network would not be a contentious issue since the rules for discontinuing services are pretty straight forward.  Services provided over copper lines are regulated by section 214(a) of the Code of Regulations (CFR), which states that “[n]o carrier shall discontinue, reduce or impair service to a community…unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that neither the present or future public convenience and necessity will be adversely affected thereby:”

Thus, any ILEC that is transitioning customers from copper to fiber would have the requirement to meet this standard and demonstrate to the Commission that all consumer services provided over that fiber have not been impaired or discontinued.

Consumer advocates claim, however, that ILECs have been forcing customers off the traditional copper phone network are in many states, while offering inferior services using fiber technologies. For example, the Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a motion with the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), asking it to prevent Verizon from letting the quality of its copper network deteriorate and from pushing customers from copper-based FiOS or Voice Link. TURN alleges that this is a national strategy and is affecting customers in New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. The migrations are alleged to have occurred without adequate notice and consent.  Since the migration, there have been numerous customer complaints about service quality, lack of Internet access or support for alarm systems, medical alerts and fax machines. This is a special concern for elderly or poor customers who may not have wireless phones and, therefore, could not reach doctors if there is a service failure.

As stated above, ILECs deny these allegations completely. For example, Verizon states in response to the TURN allegations that the overwhelming majority of its wireline customers where it has deployed an all fiber network have chosen to move to fiber in order to obtain advanced services such as FiOS Internet or FiOS TV. According to Verizon, fiber facilities are more reliable than copper because they are immune to environmental factors such as inclement weather, homeland security issues and other public service emergencies.  Moreover, customers migrating to fiber continue to receive the same traditional Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), at the same price, and subject to the same terms and conditions as they received before. They receive the same features, including alarm services, medical monitoring devices, and faxing.  There is no change in the customer’s ability to call 911. In the case of California, Verizon states that the CPUC encouraged it to provide new technologies.  Moreover, there were only two customer complaints and both were quickly resolved.  

While we cannot determine whether TURN’s allegations are correct, disputes over copper migrations to fiber as part of the IP transition are only going to increase. That is why we agree with Public Knowledge that the FCC should use the AT&T technologies transition experiment to clarify the section 214(a) impairment standard.  According to Public Knowledge, the Commission should make spell out exactly what the definition of impaired is so the new technologies do not “reduce” service to the community, especially its most vulnerable citizens. Public Knowledge argues that the impairment standard should include three components:

1.      Detailing all the current services that must be covered under the new technologies.

2.      Spelling out the technical standards for the new services.  For example, what consistent voice quality as measured in quantifiable – not merely qualitative – measurements is required?

3.      Insuring that all Commission values under TDM such as access to E911 and universal service are available with all new technologies.

The migration of services from the TDM to the IP network is already contentious. The industry ought to be able to work together to ensure that the most vulnerable end user customers are not affected.

By Andrew Regitsky, President, Regitsky & Associates