Pennsylvania’s Fiber Optic Telecom History Will Smack America’s Broadband Plans
This is taken directly from the original Verizon PA plan, which was dated December 1994, which is 30 years ago. It was literally called “Opportunity Pennsylvania”, sometimes referred to as Chapter 30.
Bell Atlantic PA now Verizon Communications, claimed it would modernize the critical telecom infrastructure by upgrading the state telecommunications public utility by replacing the aging copper wires with fiber optic.wires and this construction process would be 100% completed by 2015 for urban, suburban, and rural areas equally, with a speed of 45 Mbps in both directions. Like all Verizon states, the state changed the laws to be able to charge customers for these upgrades that did not happen — multiple times.
Why Tell this Story? Let’s present some excerpts from the original Telecommunication Public Utility Commission documents.
1) Verizon Pa: 100% completed by 2015, including internal networks.
2) Universal broadband, especially in rural areas
3) Deregulate and remove caps on profits.
4) The plan would start with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for fiber optic upgrades and be fully deployed by 1998.
5) State laws were changed to charge customers for upgrades through their monthly bills.
6) In state law, 45 Mbps in both directions was the speed of broadband — in 1993
7) Verizon did not pitch the 1.5 Mbps speed but the 45mbps in both directions speed.
8) Do not charge local wired, narrowband customers for fiber.
9) Rural Areas Must be Done, even unprofitable because the ‘total deal is quite lucrative.
10) And no cross-subsidies of the fiber with basic ‘narrowband’
Punchline:
- Pennsylvania 5-year Broadband plan: No Mention of Verizon PA or Any Previous Verizon Fiber Commitments in the State.
- FCC and NTIA Ignored All state broadband plans in advanced network reports, all analyses — for the last 25 years, rewriting the factual history for a regulator captured version.
Outcome:
- There was no build out of the first wave — 1995–2005, with fiber; 2005 FiOS was announced, and it was never completed.
- The speed of broadband was changed to allow for wireless of 1.5 Mbps in one direction — harming all fiber plans post 2006.
- The company had to do rural equally because they were also given lucrative areas that would be very profitable.
- By 2024, PA nor any other state audited Verizon’s financials for cross-subsidies of money used for wireless — which is illegal in states.
- By 2015 Verizon claimed it had fulfilled the broadband deployment — one has only to take out a map of the Verizon areas and the unserved and underserved areas to know this was a long standing bait and switch to substitute wireless.
- This is the Digital Divide, created by the failure of Verizon to do basic critical infrastructure network upgrades, replacing the aging copper wires with fiber — over decades.
- Based on current interviews, not one person has known the details of how the Digital Divide started or who is responsible or should be helped accountable.
- Morever, the accounting has been manipulated to allow customers to be charged in 2024 for networks upgrades they never got but continut to pay. Worse, the funds for construction has been diverted to wireless.
RE: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc., Docket No. R-00943235, December 20, 1994
What the AI Analysis of the PA 5 year broadband plan reveaoled:
How is it possible that the largest telecommunications state based public utility — that was supposed to have upgraded their franchised area over the last 30 years, never completed a major part of the Verizon PA territory? Maps clearly show that there are unserved and underserved areas within Verizon PA.
The AI program for this was chatpdf.com and when we asked specific questions, it showed NO mention of Verizon or the previous commitments, or that customers were charged, etc.
AI: Did Verizon Pennsylvania have commitments to do fiber optics in the state
Based on the provided excerpts from the Pennsylvania Statewide Broadband Plan, there is no specific mention of commitments by Verizon Pennsylvania to deploy fiber optics in the state. The plan primarily focuses on the state’s efforts, challenges, and goals related to broadband expansion and universal access, without specific references to commitments by individual service providers such as Verizon Pennsylvania regarding fiber optic deployment.
AI: What caused the digital divide in Pennsylvania
The digital divide in Pennsylvania is attributed to several factors, as outlined in the Pennsylvania Statewide Broadband Plan:
§ Infrastructure Availability: Lack of available infrastructure has resulted in certain locations not having access to high-speed broadband, with a significant number of households lacking access to specific broadband speed thresholds 5.
§ Affordability: Prior to the establishment of certain broadband benefit programs, a notable percentage of households did not have access to low-cost home high-speed broadband subscriptions, ranking Pennsylvania as the 18th lowest in the U.S. in this regard 5.
§ Device Access: A substantial number of households in Pennsylvania do not have access to both a computer and smartphone, which can hinder their ability to fully utilize broadband services 5.
§ Digital Literacy: A significant portion of adults in Pennsylvania may lack the digital literacy required to effectively utilize critical digital services, contributing to the digital divide 5.
§ These factors have collectively contributed to the digital divide in Pennsylvania, impacting access to and adoption of high-speed broadband services across the state.
Now compare these answers to the 1994 Verizon PA Commitments — and then take out a map of PA and compare the unserved areas, including the areas where Verizon did not do upgrades to compete with the cable companies.
==============
EXCERPTS FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA VERIZON FIBER OPTIC ALTERNATIVE PLAN — 3 DECADES AGO
1) Verizon Pa: 100% completed by 2015, including internal networks.
“At page 26 of Bell’s Plan, it addresses its commitment to universal broadband availability with some degree of specificity. According to the schedule set forth at page 26, Bell proposes to attain 7% deployment by 1998; 24% deployment by 2003; 63% deployment by 2008; 95% deployment by 2013; and 100% deployment by 2015.
2) Universal broadband, especially in rural areas
“In the present proceeding, Bell is directed to proceed with the execution of a modified Network Modernization Plan that is designed to accelerate the universal deployment of the Company’s broadband facilities throughout the Commonwealth, and especially in rural areas.”
3) Deregulate and remove caps on profits.
“We believe one device worthy of serious consideration as a vehicle for encouraging the accelerated broadband deployment under a price cap formula, as envisioned by Chapter 30, would be the removal of earning floors or ceilings.”
This allowed the profit margins that were constrained because they are a public utility, to be ‘freed by faulty deregulation.
4) The plan would start with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for fiber optic upgrades and be fully deployed by 1998.
Start with Philly and Pittsburgh by 1998.
“As noted, Bell’s deployment plan proposes minimum deployment levels by particular years. Bell has stated on the record, that by 1998, minimally 7% and by 2003, minimally 23% of rural, urban and suburban areas will receive the new network.
“Bell has also admitted in the record of this proceeding that it intends to fully deploy the network in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh markets by 1998.”
5) State laws were changed to charge customers for the upgrades
“Chapter 30 authorizes local exchange carriers (“LECs”) to petition the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) for approval of an alternative form of regulation which, if approved, would replace traditional rate base/rate of return regulation. The legislation also requires a network modernization plan as part of an alternative regulation petition. Also, local exchange carriers may request services which they believe are competitive to be so classified and, therefore, not subject to Commission jurisdiction.”
Answer: Notice the phrase “classified as competitive” that is a euphemism for — we hid the fact that we can now change extra for lots of items, like Calling Features, — And in PA, Verizon was just greedy : Imagine paying extra to use the buttons known as ‘touchtone’, However, it was still be done in 1994. By this time, touchtone had no actual costs as this service came with the network upgrades, but studies in 1999 by the Florida Public Service Commission put the cost at less than 1 cent.
“TouchTone Rates “Sixty-eight percent of residential customers and 90% of business customers subscribe to Bell’s TouchTone service. Bell’s current TouchTone revenues are $ 52 million annually.”
By declaring calling features, like Touchtone, call waiting, etc. as ‘competitive’, all of the profits did not go to build the networks or lower rates. Worse, the companies would add this charge and increase the basic rates.
6) In state law, 45 Mbps in both directions was the speed of broadband — in 1993
“With [*192] this commitment, Bell plans to deploy a broadband network using fiber optic or other comparable technology that is capable of supporting services requiring bandwidth of at least 45 megabits per second or its equivalent. <n8> Broadband switching capability will be included in Bell’s network as the technology develops and as needed to make switched broadband services available to meet customer requirements. ..As new technologies are developed with comparable capabilities, Bell will modify its implementation plans, but not its broadband availability commitments.
ANSWER; The original law had the speed of broadband as 1.544Mbps in one direction — a speed used by a copper based “T1” service. This speed did not need rate increases or even use fiber and this speed became the state standard around 2004.
But, this statement and others shows that broadband 45 Mbps: Verizon was pitching 45 Mbps in both directions, as was the case in New Jersey, and Verizon and the state knew that In Chapter 30, the law only required 1.544mbps speeds, which was capacity of a copper based broadband line better known as “T1”. However, all of the statements and documents show that Verizon was not pitching the 1.5 Mbps speed but the 45 Mbps in both directions speed. — at this juncture/.
7) Verizon did not pitch the 1.5 Mbps speed but the 45mbps in both directions speed.
And, since 1.5 Mbps did not require fiber or even network upgrades and the Office of Consumer Advocate in PA said customers should not be charged extra for high speed broadband — upgrades — which is, of course, what happened.
“ [*182] The OCA and Bell apparently agreed that Bell “plans to meet this commitment through deployment of fiber optics or comparable technology throughout its network that will be capable of providing transmission speeds greater than or equal to 45 Mbps” and that such a network “far exceed[s] the bare minimum requirements of 1.544 Mbps specified in the legislation.” R.D. at p. 470 citing Bell MB at 87–88. The building of a network which significantly exceeds the transmission capability of 1.544 Mbps as stated in the statute, has substantial implications for the proper allocation of costs as between voice driven service (generally noncompetitive) and video (generally competitive).”
8) Do not charge local wired, narrowband customers for fiber.
“Dr. Collins, sponsored by the OCA, testified on the capabilities of the copper-based network as compared to fiber. This testimony was not intended to oppose the 45 Mbps fiber optic network but to illustrate the OCA position that the investments Bell proposes, beyond the minimum requirements of Chapter 30, are intended to provide video services. The OCA did not object to the building of this video network, but argued that Bell should allocate the costs for services on that network to those that use the broadband.
9) Rural Areas Must be Done, even unprofitable because the ‘total deal is quite lucrative.
“There is no doubt that both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are markets that will exert competitive pressures on Bell to deploy broadband and other modernized facilities. Consequently, it is likely that these exchanges will reach virtually complete deployment within the first five year interval of Bell’s network modernization. These areas are commercially attractive,and have competing broadband service suppliers with some perceptible degree of market penetration.
“In those parts of Pennsylvania which are lucrative. The 3.7 million Pennsylvanians living in rural communities and many of the millions more who live in suburban areas as well as the approximately 2 million Pennsylvanians living in poverty would be the losers. Particularly those living in rural Pennsylvania may never have had access to the information superhighway or would have had access delayed for many years if this Commission had ignored the mandate of Act 67 and…”
“Bell is directed to proceed with the execution of a modified Network Modernization Plan that is designed to accelerate the universal deployment of the Company’s broadband facilities throughout the Commonwealth, and especially in rural areas. Thus, Bell’s deployment of broadband facilities will take place in locations where conventional economic, financial, business or plain engineering justifications for such deployment may not exist. In this respect, Bell may install broadband facilities and bear the associated variable and fixed costs of the investment without realizing any corresponding streams of revenues in return, especially if such broadband facilities are not going to initially serve significant demand quantities for telecommunications services. Thus, Bell may be called upon to bear the risk of such initially unproductive capital investments “
10) And no cross-subsidies of the fiber with basic ‘narrowband’
“We recommend that, based on cost studies which Bell will be required to file (see our recommendation below in Section IV.E.3.c. the Commission’s biennial review of Bell’s Plan include close monitoring of cost allocations to ensure that users of the narrow band network do not pay for the cost of the broadband network..
Punchline: Here’s the rub.
- Pennsylvania 5-year broadband plan: No Mention of Verizon PA or Any Previous Verizon Fiber Commitments in the State.
The current Pennsylvania 5 year broadband plan never mentions that customers paid for networks they never got — over and over, nor even mention that ties caused the Digital Divide, and that prices were continuously increased, but the monism were diverted to build out the wireless networks —
We estimated that by the end of 2014, Verizon PA overcharged customers about $18 billion for a fiber optic future they never got; this doesn’t include the monies from the cross-subsidies of the wireless networks and other lines of business which we recently uncovered. However, audits would be needed to determine the exact amount.
§ FCC and NTIA Ignored All state Broadband plans in advanced network reports, all analyses — for the last 25 years, rewriting the factual history for a regulator captured version.
for 26 years of the FCC’s advanced network reports, 706, leaves out all information about the upgrades of the state utilities, commitments made, or the fact that customers were overcharged.
The first FCC advanced network report in 1998, started a pattern of misinformation that is astonishing in it’s scope. Every state had a plan for fiber optic upgrades. some like PA or NJ were to have 100% upgrades of their territories, and not only did it not happen, but the regulators, including the FCC or the NTIA, have been clueless, or, because of tee severity of the failure to provide basic material facts, not only helped to cause tee Digital Divide, but also digital inequity — reward unaffordable prices and a vast desert of missing broadband, especially to rural and low income areas.
Coda: Our PA Filings and Analysis using the AI IRREGULATOR program on the 5 year proposal plan.
“If the State [*195] does not have access to information on a regional or national broadband network, it will suffer economically, educationally and culturally. The General Assembly declared that “it is the policy of this Commonwealth to: (1) maintain universal telecommunications service at affordable rates while encouraging the accelerated deployment of a universally available, state-of-the-art, interactive, public-switched broadband telecommunications network in rural, suburban and urban areas..” Section 3001(1). Bell is free to exceed the requirements of Chapter 30 if it chooses.
The Implications:
http://irregulators.org/verizonparesources/
We filed in the PA 5 Year Broadband proposal with Sascha Meinrath, X-labs
Main Sources; RE: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc., Docket No. R-00943235, December 20, 1994
Pennsylvania Telecommunications Infrastructure Study conducted by Deloitte & Touche and DRI/McGraw-Hill and completed in March 1993
