DoITT Report Summary

The findings of the report are as follows:

1. Verizon is not in compliance with its agreement since it has not truly “passed” all residential households in New York City.

The report states, “…the argument that “passing” premises with fiber optic cable includes no requirement of any proximity to that premises is manifestly untenable. At a minimum, the term “passed” must be understood to require sufficient proximity to permit Verizon to comply, at least as a rule, with its six-month deadline to fill NSIs.”  According to the franchise agreement, Verizon can recommend “non-standard installations,” which is jargon for offering Direct TV to customers or limiting service to the use of a DSL modem.

2. Verizon continues to show residential household addresses as “unavailable” despite claiming to have passed all residential households in the City.

The FiOS franchise agreement provides that an order for service received for a residential household after that premises is “passed” with fiber optic cable must be satisfied within six months of the order. But if the order cannot be filled within six months, Verizon must notify the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and state a new deadline not more than six additional months away for filling the order. For the first service to a building, this order is referred to in the contract as a “non-standard installation.”

The following findings charge Verizon with avoiding customer requests by “cooking the data,” resisting demands for data, and attempting to cover it up during the City’s audit.

3. Verizon does not complete all non-standard installation service requests within the six-month and twelve-month deadlines required by Section 5.4.2 of the franchise agreement.
4. Verizon’s procedure was to not accept and log a request for cable service at premises that Verizon had not “passed,” a violation of Section 2.5 of Appendix A of the franchise agreement.
5. Verizon did not consistently record an NSI with “yes” or “no” indicators and left some NSI indicators blank. Verizon did not communicate to prospective customers when service would be available for the non-standard installation and did not consistently treat inquiries.
6. Verizon does not communicate accurately and effectively with prospective customers.
7. Verizon failed to cooperate fully and timely with DoITT’s audit to violate Section 11.1 of the franchise agreement.
8. Verizon’s complaint process focuses only on paying subscribers, and Verizon generally does not accept complaints or inquiries from prospective customers.
9. Anecdotal evidence shows that Verizon, in some instances, does not provide timely service unless the management company enters into a bulk agreement for the building.
10. Verizon does not maintain a manual of procedures.
11. Data integrity issues exist within Verizon’s database.