Maryland Monitors Fiber Versus Copper Dispute

In Maryland, the Public Service Commission has declined to open a formal investigation into a dominant local exchange telephone carrier’s maintenance protocols with respect to its copper network facilities and associated service offers.

The commission’s decision came despite numerous requests for such an inquiry from both the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The two groups had actively urged the commission to review Verizon Maryland’s commitment to continued provision of quality basic local telephone service over its copper lines in the state. However, although rejecting the OPC/CWA pleas to open a formal proceeding, the commission emphasized that it remains committed to ensuring that consumers have access to affordable basic service provided over existing copper lines.

To that end, the commission told Verizon Maryland that it should not act in a way that “forces” its customers to switch to its fiber optic service known as FiOS. And, reinforcing its desire for the carrier to maintain the availability of copper-based service, the commission imposed certain reporting requirements on the company in an effort to make sure Verizon Maryland complies with the commission’s policy. In advocating for an investigation, the OPC had pointed to a series of recent consumer complaints and responding regulatory actions which it averred provided evidence of the following:

1. diminishment in Verizon’s copper voice service quality in both those areas of the state served by fiber and those not served by fiber;
2. concerted efforts by the company to transition customers from copper to its fiber network in some parts of the state; and
3. aggressive upselling of the company’s FiOS offerings and/or migration of customers from copper to unregulated Verizon voice services.

The petition from OPC referenced a number of consumer complaints that detailed individual experiences with repair delays, poor quality of phone service, copper landlines not functioning, and customers being switched to FiOS without customer authorization.

Indeed, the commission itself took particular note of one complaint that Verizon Maryland had allowed its copper wires to deteriorate to the point where the carrier informed the complainant that it could no longer guarantee continuously reliable service. As a result, the customer reported, Verizon had said that his only choice was to obtain service through FiOS. The commission deemed it unclear whether Verizon Maryland had been focusing more on its fiber network to the detriment of its copper network, observing that the company has consistently met all quality-ofservice metrics over the past five years. The commission also cited reports by Verizon that the majority of Maryland households have already migrated from “copper wires” telephone service in favor of unregulated services such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).

Nevertheless, the commission stated, it does not condone any move by the carrier to favor its fiber or FiOS offerings to the detriment of its copper network, regardless of the technological advances represented by the fiber options. It thus instructed Verizon Maryland to continue to maintain its copper network. In furtherance of that directive, the commission ordered the carrier to provide its service quality data to OPC for review and analysis and to take steps to remedy existing service quality problems. More specifically, the commission adopted staff recommendations that Verizon Maryland be required to

1. take prompt action to remedy all missed repair appointments;
2. collect and monitor service quality data at least every 12 months to ensure that the company’s service quality does not degrade below existing service quality requirements;
3. file its performance metrics on a monthly basis; and
4. provide its copper and fiber service quality data on both a combined and disaggregated basis.

Re Verizon Maryland’s Provision of Basic Local Phone Service Over Copper or Fiber Networks, ML# 210061, Order No. 88437, Oct. 25, 2017 (Md.P.S.C.).