[Discuss] Verizon phasing out copper

[me at mattgillen.net (Matthew Gillen)]

On 5/6/2013 11:58 AM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Matthew Gillen wrote:
>> But not in the same way copper POTS was in some very important respects.
>>  First, access: Vz doesn't /have/ to provide third party access (so for
>> example there will never be another Speakeasy, or 10-10-220 if you
>> remember that).
> 
> Almost all of the old CLECs /failed/. The CLEC business model doesn't
> work. The ones that barely survived, like Speakeasy and Covad, merged
> and now run their own circuits to corporate customers.

Just because they're not in business now doesn't mean the idea of open
access is doomed to failure.  The long-distance services (e.g. 10-10-321
and the like), while they no longer exist, had a large role in changing
the price structure for long distance (how many of you pay for long
distance on your cell plan?  On your land line even?).

Likewise the successful CLECs like speakeasy were in dense population
centers, which is exactly where Vz wanted to target first with their
FiOS rollout.  I would argue that the gross inferiority of DSL service
compared to FiOS had more to do with their extinction than a doomed
business model.

>> Second, while Comcast is the vocal leader on this, Vz
>> is right behind them: they like to claim that since it's not a POTS line
>> any more that the provisions of common-carrier status don't apply
> 
> FiOS is not a common carrier service. FiOS is not available to everyone
> equally. Neither is Xfinity. Any given city or town can decide not to
> permit Verizon to provide FiOS service, the same way that any given city
> or town can decide not to permit Comcast to provide service. Since any
> given cable TV provider's service is not common to everyone that service
> cannot have common carrier status.

That isn't what common carrier means.  Common carrier does not mean that
service has to be offered to everyone everywhere (as a resident of MA, I
could not demand service from a regional telephone company in the south,
even though it is a "common carrier"). It means that for a given
geographic area that you've agreed to service (which could be as small
as a single town; note that common carrier status was originally
designed for private delivery firms like the pony express, and they
didn't have an office in every town across the US), several conditions
apply:
 - you may not refuse service to someone who is willing and able to pay
in that geographic area
 - you may not "open the package" to see what is inside
In exchange, the "carrier" gets indemnified from any prosecution
relating to crimes committed using their service.  This is why even
though nearly all crimes use a telephone during planning or execution,
you'll never see Vz prosecuted for aiding-and-abetting petty crime.

Comcast and Vz both want to keep the indemnification part (because lets
face it, a lot of crime involves the internet one way or another), they
just want to lose the part where they have a responsibility to not "open
the package", which in internet terms means deep packet inspection (e.g.
so Comcast can use Sandvine to identify Bittorrent traffic).

> You can thank or blame the FCC for this one. It's a side effect of the
> deregulation acts that put control over who provides what in the hands
> of municipal cable advisory boards.

Yes, it's partly the FCC's fault, but it's not quite fair to blame
deregulation.  Both Vz and Comcast claim that the whole
telecommunications act doesn't apply to their respective internet
services (and therefore the FCC has virtually no regulatory authority)
as long as they are not based on the old copper infrastructure.

The bigger fault though lies with Congress, because without congress
updating/clarifying exactly what should and should not fall under the
Telecommunications Act, the courts do what courts do and guess as to the
lawmaker's intent, and what ends up happening is often the FCC doesn't
really have a very strong leg to stand on (look up the smackdown the FCC
got when it tried to reprimand Comcast over their bittorrent meddling).

Matt