2 ms·

So, a lot of folks are missing the point, which is that the investigation asks for perjury charges. Verizon swears up and down in FCC filings it is not a title

So, a lot of folks are missing the point, which is that the investigation asks for perjury charges. Verizon swears up and down in FCC filings it is not a title II common carrier FOR THE FIBER LINES (it always has been for PSTN). But in it's statements to state regulatory commissions and it's franchise agreement with states/municipalities state specifically that it is upgrading/building THE FIBER LINES under Title II. This is because Title II allows them to do so without getting further permission/process from the state. You can't tell the FCC one thing, and state regulatory agencies the other. The rest of this filing should have been removed. Press statements/etc are pretty much irrelevant, and they should stick to the simple facts. Anything else will just be fodder for arguing over when it doesn't matter. For those wondering about perjury, there are a number of federal perjury statutes (the most general that i'm aware of being 18 USC 1621, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621). If you tell the federal government something, and it includes the words "I declare under penalty of perjury, ....", and you are knowingly misrepresenting something in that document, you have committed a felony. (In the case of tax returns, it's at least two felonies, since there is also a specific tax return perjury statute, and in either case it doesn't matter whether you owe the IRS money or not)

rhino369 12y ago
But Verizon definitely provides a Title II service over those fiber lines, telephone service. It is required to. It doesn't really advertise it, but you can buy it. In Fios areas the entire telephone system is replaced by a single FTTH. Verizon is a common carrier, Title II, telephone provider. Currently its ISP service is not a Title II service. The FCC common carrier rules are about services not the underlying network technology. The statements aren't even contradictory, let alone so obviously contradictory that they were knowingly lying.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "But Verizon definitely provides a Title II service over those fiber lines, telephone service. It is required to. It doesn't really advertise it, but you can buy it. In Fios areas the entire telephone system is replaced by a single FTTH. Verizon is a common carrier, Title II, telephone provider." Sure, but it then claims to use Title II to do upgrades to it's ISP service capacity on those licenses, which is ... contradictory. If the agreements, etc, said "we will perform necessary upgrades to telephone service over fiber lines under Title II, all others will be under Title X", that would be different. But they don't. The claim it all falls under Title II. So they are definitely contradictory.

rhino369 12y ago

But Verizon definitely provides a Title II service over those fiber lines, telephone service. It is required to. It doesn't really advertise it, but you can buy it. In Fios areas the entire telephone system is replaced by a single FTTH. Verizon is a common carrier, Title II, telephone provider. Currently its ISP service is not a Title II service. The FCC common carrier rules are about services not the underlying network technology. The statements aren't even contradictory, let alone so obviously contradictory that they were knowingly lying.

DannyBee 12y ago
"But Verizon definitely provides a Title II service over those fiber lines, telephone service. It is required to. It doesn't really advertise it, but you can buy it. In Fios areas the entire telephone system is replaced by a single FTTH. Verizon is a common carrier, Title II, telephone provider." Sure, but it then claims to use Title II to do upgrades to it's ISP service capacity on those licenses, which is ... contradictory. If the agreements, etc, said "we will perform necessary upgrades to telephone service over fiber lines under Title II, all others will be under Title X", that would be different. But they don't. The claim it all falls under Title II. So they are definitely contradictory.