Although primarily known as a broadband service, some fixed wireless providers also offer voice. Drs. Katz and Aron include “terrestrial fixed wireless,” as one of the “relevant consumer options” available to California voice consumers, but neither quantifies its availability or market share in California. CALTEL’s DeYoung mentions fixed wireless as a last mile alternative for some CLECs, but she likewise does not explore its availability or quantify its market share. Much of Intervenors’ testimony about fixed wireless addresses its application in the broadband market. As some fixed wireless companies are solely broadband providers, and as their presence in the voice market is by all accounts quite small, the viability of fixed wireless will be discussed primarily in the broadband context, below. It is not without impact in the voice markets though, as fixed wireless is often mentioned as an alternative way for incumbents to reach rural customers. Whether or not fixed wireless could fulfill a provider’s carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations depends on whether the customer can reliably receive the signal inside the home as required by the Commission’s Basic Service rules. Factors affecting reliability include such things as poor weather and tree growth along the signal’s line of sight. Satellite Although the Commission licenses satellite telephone providers in California, their market share also appears quite small. Accordingly, we did not request data from these providers. Over-the-Top Voice Dr. Katz includes “voice delivered as an application over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service” as an option for consumers in the market for
functionality or other innovation. In that case, data caps, prices, indoor access, and backhaul adequacy for 5G services would be issues that would warrant further examination. With the rapid convergence of voice communications, Internet access, and video streaming into applications that are all accessible from a single device, the economic and social importance of the telecommunications network has multiplied, making the network an “essential infrastructure for [the] 21st century.” To examine telecommunications competition in California, we must also examine the services available in different parts of the State, and the service subscriptions in different parts of the State. are segments of the California populace that have not fully benefitted from competition and advances in technology. The so-called “digital divide” between geographic and economic sub-groups of the State’s population has widened. Those Californians who lack reliable and affordable access to that network are unable to participate fully in the economy and society of the 21st century. For rural and tribal Californians, the “digital divide” stems largely from the lack of sufficient deployment of telecommunications facilities and services. For low-income Californians, the “digital divide” stems largely from the unaffordability of telecommunications services. In addition to the Market Share Analyses, the Commission’s Communication Division also prepares reports in conjunction with the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) (Pub. Utils. Code §§ 914.3, 5800-5970), and with the Communication Division’s administration of the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). In particular the most recent
DM-TECH WISP Telephone WIRELINE Etheric Networks WISP ExWire WISP Fire2Wire WISP Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc. WIRELINE Frontier Communications WIRELINE Giggle Fiber - New (acquired Champion) WIRELINE Global Capacity (was MegaPath) WIRELINE Google WIRELINE Horizon Cable TV WIRELINE Internet Free Planet WISP Inyo Networks WIRELINE IWVISP WISP Kern Valley Wireless WISP Lone Pine TV WIRE-WISP Mediacom WIRELINE Mother Lode Internet WISP