Telecommunications death watch: AT&T to discontinue landline service? Verizon says Telex is dead. FCC: Not yet it isn't.

Wow. I checked it out, and it's not nearly as bad as it sounds. AT&T (which was originally SBC, one of the "Baby Bells" spun off from...AT&T) wants to drop some services that are unprofitable and they aren't so good at anymore. This would only affect Georgia and Mississippi. What I've linked to here is the story, right from the FCC:

On February 1, 2008, AT&T Inc. (AT&T or Applicant) filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) on behalf of its affiliate, SBC Long Distance, LLC d/b/a AT&T Long Distance (SBC LD), located at 1010 N. Saint Mary's Street, #13L, San Antonio, TX 78215, requesting authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 214, and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.71, to discontinue the provision of certain domestic telecommunications services in Georgia and Mississippi...

.... AT&T indicates that SBC LD does not
have any customers in Mississippi. Finally, AT&T asserts that SBC LD is non-dominant with respect to the services it proposes to discontinue.

Translation: We're losing, and we quit.

On the other hand, the end of an era is at hand.Last month, Verizon notified the FCC that it wants to shut off Telex services. The FCC, after recieving an objection from a Phillip Garrett of Telex Americas, has not automatically granted the application.

Released: 02/29/2008. APPLICATION OF MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES TO DISCONTINUE DOMESTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED, FURTHER COMMENT REQUESTED.

From the release:

 On January 2, 2008, MCI Communications Services Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services (Verizon or Applicant), located at 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, Ashburn, VA 20147, filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) requesting authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 214, and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.71, to discontinue the provision of a certain domestic telecommunications service in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. By an amendment
filed January 18, 2008, Verizon corrected certain deficiencies in its initial application and updated the record regarding notice to customers. By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau announces that Verizon's application to discontinue service is not automatically granted.

In its application, Verizon indicates that it currently offers telex service in all 50 states, theDistrict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on a domestic interstate and an international basis. Verizon explains that this service allows subscribers to send real-time teletype messages. Verizon states that it plans to discontinue this service in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on March 1, 2008, subject to Commission authorization.1 Verizon maintains that there are several alternative providers of telex services in the United States. Verizon states that it mailed letters to affected customers to inform them of the proposed discontinuance on December 27, 2007, and that it subsequently mailed notice in compliance with section 63.71(a) of the Commission's rules on January 18, 2008. Finally, Verizon asserts that it is non-dominant with respect to the service it proposes to discontinue.

I actually had no idea that Verizon offered Telex services. For those who aren't obsolete communication geeks, Telex is a service that allows verified receipt of text communications. Telex machines are still in use in many parts of the world, the the protocol is also used wirelessly to communicate with ships at sea. It's about as "legacy" as you can get, but it works, and it is trusted.

Mr. Garrett has a point. Originally, the service would be gone as of this past Saturday. Garrett, in his comments filed with the FCC notes that re-training crews which may not be English-speaking and are used to Telex as a reliable system would take more than a few months, and is not as simple as switching phone companies, since Telex numbers can't be ported to a different provider. Plus, switching and telling all these ships is pretty damn expensive:

Many of MCI/Verizon's telex subscribers are not the end point customer themselves

but rather each has hundreds of other customers that in turn are spread

throughout the world. Further, to notify these end customers (ships and

shipping companies) of the telex number change, Mr. Garrett's customers

must use the expensive Inmarsat C Satellite for telex messaging. Telex

messages via satellite are priced in either duration or kilobit pricing

(averaging per message about $3.35/minute to $6.70/minute duration or $0.22

to $0.30 per quarter/kilobit). This becomes very expensive as Mr. Garrett's

customers then use Satellite telex messaging to propagate the telex number

change to ships at sea. Merely transmitting a new "hey, I have a new

number" through a business entity is not sufficient to effectively implement

that number in all phases of maritime business operation. It is guaranteed

that providing the new number, for example, to a ship captain, will quickly be

lost until in his pocket or under a desk, until that new number is

implemented in updated papers and procedures. Although this, in of itself, is

not of MCI/Verizon's doing, it does demonstrate that MCI/Verizon is being

intellectually disingenuous when it concludes that customers are not affected

merely because they can obtain a new telex number and transmit it

throughout their empires within 48 hours or by March 1st, 2008. To

emphasize how important these current assigned telex numbers are to the

shipping and banking industries, many customers pay up to the going

industry rate of $280/month per telex number. Therefore, telex numbers are

extremely important to the maritime industry. To put this in perspective,

MCI/Verizon is essentially notifying businesses with broad customer bases,

over the Christmas and New Year's holidays, that on March 1st, their telex

services will be discontinued; however, this is okay because these businesses

can merely transmit out a new number across the world and that should be

sufficient. Mr. Garrett wonders how quickly MCI/Verizon would respond if

indeed the same scenario were being inflicted on their own customer base

where, for example, the inbound MCI/Verizon help desk number or service

connection request phone number was being discontinued. Would they feel

that March 1s, 2008 would be sufficient time to notify their customer base of

the new phone numbers? Again, it is not that these telex numbers belong to

individual endpoint customers as much as these individual endpoint

customers use these telex numbers for their own entire customer bases. Mr.

Garrett is proposing that the Commission consider these end customer

ramifications prior to approving the disconnection of telex services on March

1st, 2008. Delaying the telex service disconnection until August 1st, 2008

allows not only the procurement of a new telex service number, but also

allows customers to propagate and implement that hat new number throughout

their customer base.