33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Sep 17, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 161 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
FCC net-neutrality comments surpass 3M, beat Janet Jackson 'Wardrobe-gate' for record(Neal McLain)
Re: Basic fiber optic phone service vs. Fios phone service (Fred Goldstein)

What is right and what is practicable are two different things.  - James Buchanan

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:38:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@removme-this.annsgarden.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: FCC net-neutrality comments surpass 3M, beat Janet Jackson 'Wardrobe-gate' for record Message-ID: <7fdaf17f-a617-433e-98c0-1d1d80e15713@googlegroups.com> By Daniel Frankel, FierceCable, September 16, 2014 With the public commentary period for the FCC's proposed new net-neutrality rules ending Monday night, the commission reported that the number of comments had set a record, at more than 3 million. With the number of comments nearly tripling from the 1.1 million reported just a month earlier, and doubling in just one week, the net-neutrality issue generated the most robust public response the Federal Communications Commission has ever seen. It even usurped the input the FCC received a decade ago when the commission reviewed broadcast obscenity rules in the wake of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. With the majority of the comments supporting meaningful regulation over the amount of control Internet service providers exert over their networks, the FCC said it will hold a series publicly accessible round-table discussions about the matter over the next two months, starting Tuesday. Continued: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fcc-net-neutrality-comments-surpass-3m-beat-janet-jackson-wardrobe-gate-rec/2014-09-16?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal -or- http://tinyurl.com/qe8aea8 Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:40:50 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Basic fiber optic phone service vs. Fios phone service Message-ID: <lv87vh$vqh$1@dont-email.me> On 9/14/2014 10:46 PM, Tom Metro wrote: > A few weeks ago in the consumer column of the Boston Sunday Globe: > > > http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/08/30/copper-fiber-phone-service-better-fight-than-switch/83SzuNwB4QmJbyM1Rfmg1J/story.html > > -or- > > http://goo.gl/DqZZ6r > > > ... a reader explained that in response to a repair request on their > copper phone line, Verizon was forcing (not encouraging) them to > migrate to fiber. The reader asked, "...what consumer protections > apply. Has Massachusetts taken a position?" > > The reporter started off with the usual note about fiber being different > from copper in that during a power outage, you are reliant on a local > backup battery, but otherwise it is technically superior. > > But then he went on point out that Verizon is offering two different > products. One being Fios phone service, and the other being basic fiber > optic phone service. As we know, Fios isn't regulated by the state > utility regulators, but notably basic fiber optic phone service is. I > hadn't heard of that before. > > A spokeswoman for the state Department of Telecommunications and Cable > (DTC) said, "Because this is a technology upgrade...the department does > not have the authority to interfere with this change, so consumers must > either switch to fiber or switch carriers." > > So I guess you are out of luck if Verizon picks you for a forced upgrade > and you want to stick with copper. > > The reporter referenced the DTC's advisory on this matter: > > http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/consumer/fiber-migration-advisory-final-6-27-14.pdf > > > A quote from that: > > The DTC requires that Verizon make available to all residential > customers in Verizon's service territory a regulated landline voice > telephone service and Verizon claims its fiber service, where offered, > will meet this obligation. So let me clarify. Massachusetts has not ended Verizon's carrier of last resort (COLR) status, which requires them to provide POTS lines on request. However, they can deliver the POTS line using FiOS hardware. It will still go under the Verizon-Massachusetts (ex-New England Telephone) tariff, and be subject to the usual regulation. They do not, however, advertise that offer. Instead, they promote FiOS voice packages that technically go to a different Verizon subsidiary, not subject to all of the same rules. So that's what the vast majority of subscribers have. In many cases the less-regulated service is a better deal, but YMMV. They are not obligated to use copper, but the ONTs have batteries. BTW this gives them one up over Comcast, whose XFINITY Voice service now is delivered via cable modems that do not come with a battery. Be forewarned -- this truly sucks big time, and should not be allowed. Comcast has apparently been taken over by accountants who emulate the old Chrysler, taking value out faster than they can remove cost, and wonder why customers go elsewhere. > So what changed from the early days of Fios, where Verizon would pull > out the copper lines to prevent the consumer from using those lines they > were obligated to share with other telcos? Does this mean another telco > can demand that Verizon lease the fiber line? And if so, what > capabilities are available? Does Verizon use loopholes to argue that > only a voice line of bandwidth is available for lease? Verizon's obligation above is retail, not wholesale. Their wholesale obligation does however require them to make copper loops available if they exist. If they pulled out the drop wire, they have to put one back in on request of a CLEC. They do however charge for that, and assume that the installation cost of a new drop will discourage CLECs from using their old copper loops. If the copper loop no longer exists (i.e., it does not pass the house), then they merely need provide one voice-grade (DS0, narrowband) channel per premise on a wholesale basis. > Is Verizon implementing this with Fios style dedicated fibers between > the CO and the customer, or are they running fiber to neighborhood > concentrators, and multiplexing only a low-bandwidth signal onto a > shared trunk line? They either use a copper loop as they did before FiOS (which might go to a digital loop carrier system) or they use the FiOS hardware to the subscriber. > I'm assuming for simplicity sake they're using a single identical > infrastructure for both, plus this way once they have a foot in the > door, they can upsell the consumer on their bundled offerings and not > have to upgrade the connection. They lost an FCC case over whether they could take a CLEC's order for service to a given customer site and pass it to the "win-back" team. That was ruled an illegal use of the CLEC's CPNI. However, I have documentary evidence (actual recordings) that they have continued to do so, if not as regularly. > > ...you should inform Verizon if you have any home monitoring equipment > such as alarm/security systems or medical equipment that relies upon > your existing phone line to ensure that it will continue to work after > you make the switch. > > Digital voice services are also notoriously incompatible with fax > machines, due to the way they compress the signal. The DTC advisory > implies that there aren't technical differences between the two Verizon > voice offerings, only marketing and regulatory differences. So I'm > assuming both are using lossy codecs in their ONT. They may support > T.381, which demodulates the fax at the analog-to-digital conversion > point. > > 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.38 > > FiOS does not use lossy codecs. Nor does PacketCable. I have fax machines on both RCN and Comcast cable phone lines; both run at high speed.

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.

The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

End of The Telecom Digest (2 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues