Best of the ISP-Lists 

ILECs Have New Excuses in New Buildings

A member of the ISP-CLEC list finds an all new twist on an all-too-familiar lie from the phone company.

[August 4, 2008]

On the ISP-CLEC list in July, GC wrote:

I am not sure if this subject has been discussed in the past, but if it has been, I could not find it in the archives. I will tell my story and findings, and would like to hear if there are any similar experiences out there.

We are a CLEC in New Hampshire and recently ordered some voice grade copper loops to a new business complex (no residential). FOC data came in, and everything seemed fine until we received a phone call from the install tech saying there is no copper at this facility and this was a fiber only greenfield area, so we would not be able to get our voice grade loop.

We then went and read the TRRO and it seemed that greenfield areas are those majority residential newly constructed and fiber only served areas. So it does not meet the specifications for our customer area as it is a business complex. While we are discussing this with our public utilities commission, I like to find out if there are other experiences out there. [Please] share yours.

[MC replied] "I have not ordered VG loops, but I have ordered quite a few DS-1 loops and ran into a situation where Verizon would not install an EEL at the customer site. (The customer was located on a huge military base that was leased out for commercial use.)

Verizon claimed the military wouldn't let them install it at the communications hut (which was miles away from the customer's building.) They said the only way they could deliver it was for us to order it as special access. I spoke with the person at the military base and he told me Verizon was allowed to do what they always do, which was to cross connect their fiber to the military's copper and then connect the copper to a smart jack at the building demarc. So lo and behold, it really wasn't the military denying access, it was Verizon claiming the communications hut was the demarc and refusing to bring the DS1 out to the demarc at the customer's building.

I tried everything to get them to find a workaround since it was an unusual situation and they just wouldn't budge. My customer chose not to install a special access private line because the IOF mileage cost was just a killer.

A few months later, my customer ran across an industry letter that stated you could combine a special access loop with UNE transport, so I ordered it that way. Verizon gave us fits with the order saying that you could only combine a special access loop with UNE transport if the EU office was impaired, but when we escalated it and presented them with their own industry letter, they decided they had to install it!

Anytime you run into a situation where they say there is no facilities, ASK them to be specific. Nine times out of ten, I've found their denial is because of a routine network modification and they can't deny your order for that, but in some states, you may have to pay an additional installation charge. They can only deny you outright for no copper or fiber. Most of the time the "no copper/ fiber" problem is going to be from the SWC to the EU customer's location and not between the two COs. So instead of installing a special access loop all the way and paying a higher rate for fiber when you don't need to, order a a special access loop with UNE transport. In Verizon the only difference between an EEL order and a commingled loop and UNE transport order is that you populate the CNO field with "YS".

The industry letter that supports this is here.

VB, a list member who now runs a data center, replied:

I SO miss not dealing with this anymore (NOT!). I spent major amounts of time and effort beating VZ into submission up here on the routine network modification of loops issue.

— End