On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all* on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location; VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that, or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
Hi Jay, They way I heard it, ILECs like Verizon are required to provide unbundled elements of the tariffed services anywhere they accept new orders for service which consumes those unbundled elements. They are not required to deploy new infrastructure solely to satisfy an order for an unbundled element but they may not deliver new element-consuming services without also satisfying the orders for unbundled elements. So, if they build new POTS ports at the CO, they're required to also fill the orders for unbundled POTS ports. And if they lay new copper to connect those ports to customer homes they're required to also fill the orders for unbundled pairs along the same path. Separately, an ILEC like Verizon has a universal service obligation to deliver a POTS line anywhere you order one. Without exception. The hinky part is that the FCC decided that copper pairs are an unbundled element but PONS wavelengths and Coaxial cable frequency channels are not. So, Verizon doesn't have to share access to FIOS and Comcast doesn't have to share access to the coax. As long as they deliver phone service without consuming copper pairs, universal service doesn't compel them to build any copper plant to satisfy your unbundled element order. I pine for the return of structural separation. If the cable plant provider was required to be a separate company from the services provider, we wouldn't have these shenanigans. Different shenanigans but not these. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004