 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Sell off in stages I wonder if both sides and/or regulators would be willing to sell off the same areas, but in stages. 3 states have already approved the deal. Get those states switched over and see how Frontier handles the influx of customers. If they handle that, do another batch. Frontier may be able to handle tripling in subscriber count over a period of time, but the same influx all at once could be too much. |
|
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by cdru:I wonder if both sides and/or regulators would be willing to sell off the same areas, but in stages. 3 states have already approved the deal. Get those states switched over and see how Frontier handles the influx of customers. If they handle that, do another batch. Frontier may be able to handle tripling in subscriber count over a period of time, but the same influx all at once could be too much. That is a pretty good idea.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Romney2012:said by cdru:I wonder if both sides and/or regulators would be willing to sell off the same areas, but in stages. 3 states have already approved the deal. Get those states switched over and see how Frontier handles the influx of customers. If they handle that, do another batch. Frontier may be able to handle tripling in subscriber count over a period of time, but the same influx all at once could be too much. That is a pretty good idea. Another possibility is something called "ringfencing", which some regulators are considering. Here is a description of what that is:
»www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ringfencing.asp
Basically it separates the debts by state so that a collapse of Frontier would not affect the operation and debts of the individual subsidiaries in the different states. The link above explains how that works.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 MannusPremium
join:2005-10-25
Fort Wayne, IN
·Frontier FiOS
·Verizon FiOS
 ·Dish Network
1 edit | reply to cdru
said by cdru:I wonder if both sides and/or regulators would be willing to sell off the same areas, but in stages. 3 states have already approved the deal. Get those states switched over and see how Frontier handles the influx of customers. If they handle that, do another batch. Frontier may be able to handle tripling in subscriber count over a period of time, but the same influx all at once could be too much. I was thinking the same thing earlier this week. Let them prove themselves capable first by giving them a year to meet specific open, transparent, and tangible performance goals in the states that have already approved the sale. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to Romney2012
That would be a start. I wonder if verizon could be forced to carry some of the debt for 5 years or so as a secondry lender. i.e. if frontier fails verizon gets less/little back.
It would give them incentive to be sure they aren't setting Frontier up to fail and gives frontier some breathing room on debt service, seems a reasonable cost to verizon / the price of abandoning responsiblities in these areas.
Since they are already getting a huge write off, the cash cost SHOULD be much lower to Frontier |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012: it separates the debts by state so that a collapse of Frontier would not affect the operation and debts of the individual subsidiaries in the different states. Interesting idea. Wonder how well it would work in practice but since each state imposes its own regulatory regime, keeping each one separate seems like a good idea. |
|
| reply to tshirt
Yes, but 'reasonable' isn't a word in the megacorp lexicon. Lets be honest about the entire proposal. Verizon KNOWS that Frontier (like Hawaii, Fairpoint, etc), WILL go bankrupt. They don't care. Period. They want to get the best tax writeoff they can. Verizon will insist it's an 'all or nothing' deal. That's their strongest argument. Guess what, I will guarantee you that at some point in the near future, the 'regulators' (after some bribes from Verizon), will sign off on the full deal. Everyone wins! Oh, wait, everyone except the customers.
The solution is to deny the deal. AND force Verizon to maintain/upgrade their networks. Lets be honest, if Verizon doesn't think they can make money, then they don't want to do it. BUT.. and here's the big BUT, BUT VERIZON WAS FORMED (as part of Ma Bell) to PROVIDE SERVICE TO EVERYONE. Why does everyone keep forgetting that WE THE PEOPLE gave these companies monopolies in the first place to provide universal service? Ma Bell might be dead, but it's coming back. Just because they are not 'Ma Bell', does not give them the right to screw the customer. Verizon WOULD NOT EXIST if we didn't give them HUGE (think 10's of Billions) of concessions over the years. Verizon was FORMED by the breakup of the Bells. Verizon owes it's existence to Ma Bell. Guess what, we should hold Verizons feet to the fire, and force them to actuall provide the TAXPAYERS a return on their investment (via the MASSIVE TAX BREAKS) they have gotten over the years.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by karlmarx:BUT.. and here's the big BUT, BUT VERIZON WAS FORMED (as part of Ma Bell) to PROVIDE SERVICE TO EVERYONE. Why does everyone keep forgetting that WE THE PEOPLE gave these companies monopolies in the first place to provide universal service? If you really want to play that game, we the people should put Ma Bell back together and actually recreate the monopoly. |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx: BUT VERIZON WAS FORMED (as part of Ma Bell) to PROVIDE SERVICE TO EVERYONE. Historical Note: Verizon was formed by merging Bell Atlantic, a RBOC, and GTE(a large Non-RBOC) in 2000.
An extremely large % of this Verizon sale to Frontier is former GTE territory.
I believe that West Virginia is the only ex-Bell Atlantic territory involved in this Verizon-Frontier change. Is that correct? |
|
 dsldude08Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2 | And GTE territory is HORRIBLE. Existing tariff's and rates there are astronomical which = bad for customers for pricing. The systems are very OLD, weren't maintained well by GTE, and need updated, so yeah, of course Verizon doesn't want to touch that, it costs money... |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by dsldude08:And GTE territory is HORRIBLE. Existing tariff's and rates there are astronomical which = bad for customers for pricing. The systems are very OLD, weren't maintained well by GTE, and need updated, so yeah, of course Verizon doesn't want to touch that, it costs money... That might be true in some areas, but I am in ex-GTE territory and (a) remember GTE quite fondly and (b) have FiOS internet and TV.
I think most of WA and OR are in that category, actually. I guess Verizon wants to divest of WA and OR simply for geographical reasons - -just too far away from their "core" territories. |
|
