Verizon is urging the Federal Communications Commission to reject a call for an investigation into statements it has made on utility rules, net neutrality, and its fiber network.

Verizon was accused of "deceiv[ing] the FCC" by telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick of New Networks Institute and audit director Tom Allibone of telecom customer advocacy group Teletruth. Verizon has used its status as a telephone utility to gain favorable government treatment of its fiber network even while telling the FCC that applying similar rules to Internet service would deter private investment. Kushnick and Allibone called Verizon "the 'Janus' of telecom," referring to a two-faced god of Roman mythology.

Right now, Verizon's fiber lines carry both heavily regulated telephone service and lightly regulated broadband and TV service, but the FCC could change that by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC would use Title II to enforce net neutrality rules while forbearing from stricter regulations that apply to traditional telephone service.

Verizon told the FCC that it has not tried to deceive the commission in a filing on Tuesday:

New Networks Institute’s (NNI) so-called “Petition for Investigation” is frivolous, recycling old, baseless, and inaccurate claims that have been previously addressed and dismissed. NNI suggests that Verizon has engaged in “massive deception” by opposing the radical shift to a Title II regulatory framework for broadband even as Verizon has previously noted its reliance on Title II for purpose of explaining in cable franchise applications the source of its authority to deploy its fiber network. But there is no “gotcha” here, just confusion on NNI’s part. Despite NNI’s histrionics, it is no secret that Verizon offers a telecommunications service—namely, plain old telephone service (POTS)—over its fiber network. Those services are and always have been subject to Title II. Nor is it a secret that Verizon also offers other services over that same network, including FiOS TV and FiOS Internet, that have never been subject to Title II and that are instead covered by other parts of the Communications Act. For example, FiOS TV is subject to Title VI, and Verizon obtained the required cable franchises before offering that service. But NNI seeks to conflate these two undisputed facts into what it terms a “massively deceptive practice” warranting “an investigation.” NNI is wrong and its request baseless. Offering POTS over the network—and relying on our traditional telephone franchise for purposes of deploying networks that are still used to offer traditional telephone services—is irrelevant to the question of the regulatory classification for broadband Internet access services or what the best regulatory framework is to encourage continued investment in broadband Internet access.

Verizon's FiOS services don't "transform" into Title II services simply because they are transmitted over the same fiber that carries telephone calls, Verizon said. (To make things more confusing, Verizon offers both heavily regulated, circuit-switched telephone service and lightly regulated IP-based voice service over those same lines. Eventually, Verizon intends to switch entirely to IP-based voice and wants to leave utility-style rules that require universal access at fair prices behind forever.)

Verizon concluded its response by saying, "Verizon’s position is and has been consistent throughout the inception of its fiber deployment and NNI’s frivolous Petition should be denied outright."

The NNI petition also said Verizon paid for its fiber network by charging phone customers higher rates approved by utility regulators, but Verizon did not address that complaint.

"New Networks Institute was surprised that Verizon's letter only talks about 'services' and avoids responding to the charges that its fiber network was built under Title II authority and paid for by local phone customers," Kushnick told Ars in an e-mail. "We will be filing an 'official response' next week as our lawyers and experts are doing research into some of the particulars—and we will be expanding our complaint based on Verizon's response."

We've asked the FCC if it plans an investigation but have not received an answer yet.