Wireless Replacing Wireline? Not So Fast…

With more than two months to go before the election, the pandering political rhetoric has already begun to assault us.  I figure that if it’s early August as I write this, things are going to be absolutely unbearable as we get closer to the election.  For all intents and purposes, New York isn’t even a state that’s in play—at least in the presidential contest.  But the real kicker for me is that I’ve been seeing some ads that address issues of Verizon and telecom policy. In Washington, seeing ads like this is not surprising, but in western New York, they are a bit more, um, unsettling.

Amidst the fine feats of American (and the occasional other) athletes shown on NBC, I’ve already seen an ad repeated several times about Verizon and the cable companies. The ad is so vague as to leave me puzzled about the issue and precisely what it is that the entity paying for the ad wants to accomplish. Then I read the small print at the end of the ad—Paid for by the Communications Workers of America.  CWA is a fine organization of hardworking telecommunications technicians and others who have done a great job for a number of years.  However, as technology has evolved, CWA has become argumentative—and reactionary—and this series of ads only reinforces this perception.

Sadly for CWA membership, the number of union jobs required primarily by Verizon, but others as well, has decreased as technology has become increasingly sophisticated, and as people have migrated away from what was once called “plain old telephone service” (POTS is a real acronym in the telecommunications world). As individuals and businesses have the option of receiving traditional dial tone from cable providers, among others, CWA leadership is concerned that the change in technology is going to have a negative impact on union members.  No kidding.  And as a result, members are spreading the word. It just so happens that the gospel that they’re spreading isn’t always totally accurate.

Early in August, I received an email from an attorney friend in the South Towns, who shared this story… “Our phone lines frequently poop out after a rain.  The Verizon folks have been honest with us over the years and said they keep doing a Band-Aid job and that Verizon won't spend the money to do a proper fix.  The problem has something to do with an ‘aerial conductor.’  Anyway, today the Verizon repairman said the CEO of Verizon doesn't like spending money on landlines because Verizon wants the whole system to go wireless, and in some regions of the country Verizon has received government approval to simply inform residents that they have a month to switch to wireless.”

I sympathize with my friend, particularly because I understand that using a wireless device is hardly an option in rural areas where, as she politely put it in a subsequent email, “If I stand on my head, facing the wireless provider’s corporate headquarters and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Swahili, sometimes it works.”  I feel her pain.  However, the Verizon technician who paid this call was only partially correct.
Verizon is in a tough spot.  In the days when Verizon had no competition, it was—and most instances remains-- responsible for installing and maintaining its sizable cable plant. That means from the location of its large switching centers to your front door.  This was a huge expense which the company was able to recoup because there was no one else selling the same service.

After the 1996 Telecommunications Act, carriers like Verizon (incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILECs) were forced to sell capacity on their infrastructure to competitors, whom, in turn, could sell services similar to those offered by Verizon at a discounted and unregulated amount. While the benefits of local telephone competition are many, the fact that the ILECs have had to sell capacity and services to competitors at discounted rates have been a real disincentive to those ILECs to invest in expensive infrastructure maintenance and improvements.  As a result of these disincentives—particularly in rural and other less profitable areas—investment in infrastructure that supports traditional telecommunications that needs maintenance or replacement becomes a low priority (and that can be sold to competitors at discounted rates).

But returning to what the Verizon repair person told my friend, landline service is costly to maintain, but it’s not going anywhere soon—at least in New York.  Additionally, for all of the chatter about how great wireless service is, it has many significant limitations.  There are places within New York where it’s impossible to get a signal (among other locations, much of the 6.1 million acres included in Adirondack Park, for one).  Secondly, while things have improved, it is neither secure nor reliable in certain circumstances.  Thirdly, as you are no doubt aware, it’s not always possible to get a wireless signal even where geography doesn’t interfere. The fact is that demand for wireless service has grown so dramatically that the wireless infrastructure as it currently exists cannot always meet the demand.  Finally, and most importantly, wireless service relies on the wireline infrastructure that’s been built out all over the country. So, while the last piece of the chain that connects a call may be wireless, that call would be undeliverable without a massive and complex wired infrastructure.
 
To address the last issue raised by the Verizon repairman, it’s not remotely likely that Verizon would stop offering landline service in New York, although it’s certainly possible that some competitors of Verizon might choose to the pull the plug on their customers. However, in New York, such providers must provide customers with a MINIMUM of 60 days notice, as is required by the New York Public Service Commission, and options for switching providers—rather than losing service will be presented, most likely multiple times.
 
Wireline service is not going away. Wireless service offers a great convenience, but it doesn’t provide the same level of security and/or reliability of wireline, even if the aerial conductor occasionally gets soggy.  However, ads that distort the truth, like the ones I’ve seen on this issue (and many others as well), do a disservice to everyone.