Tell Innovative Communications Corporation and the VI Public Services Commission that the HFC Net...
We live in a time where rapid technological advancements are shaping the very fibre of society, from the way we learn to the ways in which we communicate. With each advance comes the race to attain – to have “the best.” Since the acceptance and implementation of the Transfer of Control Agreement (“TOCA”), Innovative Communications Corporation (“ICC”), through its parent company Caribbean Assets Holdings, LLC (“CAH”), has too entered the HFC network race to keep up with the Joneses…the only problem is the Joneses don’t live here!
In a letter dated 26, September 2014, the Public Services Commission (“PSC”) stated that the Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation (“VITELCO”) legacy network is in “poor condition,” and because of its “dilapidated” state is “incapable of providing the types of services consumers will want in the future.” On the other hand, ICC claims that the new Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (“HFC”) network will “benefit the residents and businesses of the US Virgin Islands by making available to them enhanced and reliable services,” based on its “well proven” and “extensive use throughout the country” (emphasis mine). In the business plan ICC presented to the PSC, the organisation clearly states that unlike the legacy network, “a stable, reliable WAPA power distribution system is an essential element” for ICC’s HFC network to yield “consistently high service levels.” This factor may be of no concern “throughout the country” where the electricity supply is consistent, but here in the VI where WAPA’s service is consistently inconsistent, this detail becomes a reason for concern. Factor in that for six months out of the year the territory is vulnerable to the threat of tropical weather systems, and this concern becomes a legitimate problem.
One of the main stipulations of the TOCA, as per the request of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), was that CAH take into account the fact that the territory is located in a hurricane-prone zone, thereby making it imperative that any technology introduced to the territory be able to bypass the need for an electricity supply. The HFC network does not meet this criterion. In a speech to the Rotary Club on 9 October 2014, CAH Chief Executive Officer, Shawn O’Donnell, stated that “so people can call during an emergency, phone and Internet jacks have long-lasting batteries” (the ICC telephone directory and TOCA-related business plan documents state that only phone service is preserved by the backup battery). As a matter of fact, the ICC telephone directory states that in the event of power failure, the backup battery within the EVO modem will “keep the telephone service working up to four hours (talk time),” however this is seldom the case. After polling ICC EVO customers throughout the territory, it became evident that my experience with the modem was not an isolated one. Rather than the proposed four hours of talk time, as soon as a power outage occurs, telephone service is simultaneously out of service; and as for O’Donnell’s claims that “Innovative can monitor battery strength and notify you to let you know to change it,” no one polled in my inquiry reported receiving a call from ICC notifying them that and/or explaining why their modem was not working. To add insult to injury, inquires made to ICC concerning the dysfunctional nature of their product have been met with excuses (one ICC service rep claimed the ill-functioning backup battery is a result of not having every ICC phone customer on the HFC network as yet), and deflection of responsibility to WAPA. Granted, WAPA is the sole electricity utility provider in the territory, prior to introducing the HFC network, WAPA had long established its service delivery as consistently inconsistent. I think it is safe to say that every WAPA electricity utility consumer, including those on the PSC, is aware of the constant electricity outages (weather-provoked or not). So the real question here is why, all things considered, was the HFC network allowed to enter the territory basically unchecked by the PSC, when 30 V.I.C. § 45a (3), which outlines the designation of eligible telecommunications carriers, clearly states that a potential carrier must demonstrate “its ability to remain functional in emergency situations,” including “a demonstration that it has a reasonable amount of back-up power to ensure functionality without an external power source…?”
With the legacy network, consumers were able to utilise their phone service subscription regardless of the status of the electricity supply at their respective residence. This capability is especially important should the need to call for help arise in the midst/or in the aftermath of a natural disaster; however with the HFC network this capability is lost. When one considers that there have been several tropical systems in VI history that rendered large sections of the territory without electricity for upwards of six months at a time, the preposterous suggestion that four hours of talk time is sufficient to counteract the HFC network’s reliance on electricity is beyond insulting. Hurricanes aside, it is also no secret that due to the high cost of electricity there are many elderly members of our community living without electricity. Not only does no electricity mean no means by which to charge a cellular phone, now it means that there is no way for a community member in this dire predicament to retain their ICC landline telephone subscription. With the level of criminal activity occurring in the community on a regular basis, would you want your loved ones or yourself to be in a position where you need to call for help, but cannot because CAH and PSC were more concerned with keeping up with the Joneses than with the welfare of the consumers they serve and, in the case of the PSC, were put in place to protect?
Throughout the world the American way has long been touted as the way, but just as building codes are based on regional conditions, technol...
