Given that in many states (like say NY) Verizon is NOT the COLR of the entire state, why would this be on a state by state basis. I can see them having COLR requirements for where they are the COLR but why would they be required to put in FiOS in Rochester (for example) which is a Frontier property?
Now, you could be trying to say that they must implement FiOS in all Verizon properties in NY. Again, odd as they don't even have DSL in all properties.
But what I think you really mean is that E911 and COLR are requirements independent of the technology used to deliver them. Back to my comment on the upstate NY flood and Dan's 4G replacement what that would mean is that in that case wireless outages would have the same fines as wireline outages do today.
ATT and Verizon should be reqired to meet all the requirements of Copper rules including universal service, provider of last resort and 911 services for every household the states they serve wtih fiber optic networks.
Especially if they insist on working for legislation that block munilcipal network construction. To do anything less will make the rural United States a thrid world nation in the communication area.
Worse, there is a vicious cycle between the telecoms and the electric utilities.
One thing that is holding down electric reliability is insufficient monitoring and control in the distribution system. Part of the reason for that is lack of low cost, low data rate, low latency, high reliability, easily deployed communications. 3G wireless would be a great fit in a lot of these applications, except for the reliability part. And one reason for inadequate reliability is that NodeB/antenna sites have unreliable powering. Which would be more reliable if utilities could upgrade monitoring and control to reduce outage times.
Mobile operators are supposedly working to break this cycle, but breaking negatives perceptions in the utilities is going to be hard.
re: "Why are cable and telcos under separate rules at all nowadays?"
Yet another thought-provoking question. I think the answer is that "we've always done it that way." Which is a horrible answer but perhaps the FCC can get their heads around the idea that these companies, though on different infrastructure, operate the same way and provide the same services.
I think the answer is also "because telcos spend more on lobbying than it takes to feed and clothe most of the third World." Cable spends a lot, too, but when you lobby differently you get different results.
For sure, POTS isn't perfect, copper can still get flooded etc, etc.
But at the moment there's not even a mandated backup period on cellsites, carriers say it will cost hundreds of millions to upgrade. Sprint and others went to court to stop the FCC mandate after Katrina.
Meanwhile, its not even clear how 911 rules apply to some of the very latest IP comms systems.
At the moment, the end of the copper era means the end of clear rules on what kind of failsafes our communications systems should have.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
