David Cay Johnston's business column " Analysis: This could be end to phone in every home " (April 1 and TribLIVE.com) is misplaced nostalgia for an era that technology has long ended. Contrary to his suggestions, consumers have a number of choices for their "home" communications needs, and voice service over a traditional landline is just one of them.
For example, many are simply "cutting the cord" and going wireless. As of June 2011, more than 31 percent of U.S. households no longer used a wireline connection. Consumers have other options, as well. Cable companies and other phone companies offer wireline voice services, often over a broadband connection via Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Customers can also choose purely Internet-based tools, such as Skype. The FCC has reported that traditional wireline phone lines are decreasing, on average, by about 8 percent annually, and about a third of all homes are now connected to VoIP.
Verizon has supported legislation proposed in several states that would modernize ancient regulatory rules for phone service. With competition and many changes in communications, it does not make sense to have rules and regulations created when consumers' only option was a rotary phone offered by a single phone company. These rules add costs for consumers and stifle innovation.
Verizon is committed to competing in the marketplace, and we support updating outdated rules and regulations. There are new and better services available, and we need the flexibility to deliver them to our customers.
Carl E. Erhart
The writer is area vice president for Verizon.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steel at stake, too
- Pedro must go
- Duty to disclose
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Good riddance
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Don’t blame bus drivers II
- Beware this Wolf I