 ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | Seems to be the new way... Know ahead of time that you are not going to be able to handle your debt. Spend more money and lobby politicians to let mergers go through. After the merger, paint a poor, pitiful, we did not know this would happen picture. Then, file for bankruptcy screwing over all your creditors that you have dealt with in the past.
All the while, look for those high executive compensation packages to keep rolling along. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Seems to be the new way... I was thinking exactly the same thing. Glad to know I'm not the only one who sees it. | |
|
 |  OCNBLUEDazedPremium join:2000-11-07 Dallas | Is there any company that Verizon has sold/spun to that has not filed Bankruptcy?
Genuity Hawaii Telecom Idearc Fairpoint Frontier (Bound to happen in 2 years)
Great article here on Ivan - »www.shareholderforum.com/vz/Publ···_WSJ.htm | |
|
 |  |  WhatNowPremium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC | Re: Seems to be the new way... I was thinking the same thing was glad to see your post. It is way to easy to walk away from your mistakes when you are big company. Life will be easier if we just shaft all our creditors. The ones it really hurts are the small suppliers. Let the top brass work for minimum wage since they were the ones making decisions while they layoff those at the lower levels. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Seems to be the new way... It's not just the creditors that get screwed over....this also screws the workers over because now concessions have to be given in order to keep from being terminated. This applies to both union and non-union workers. -- BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
 |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by OCNBLUE:Is there any company that Verizon has sold/spun to that has not filed Bankruptcy? CenturyTel | |
|
 |  |  |  WindstreamPremium,VIP join:2009-03-31 Twinsburg, OH kudos:28 | Re: Seems to be the new way... said by patcat88:said by OCNBLUE:Is there any company that Verizon has sold/spun to that has not filed Bankruptcy? CenturyTel Then Alltel, now Windstream -- We're here to help! wci.broadbandhelp@windstream.com | |
|
 |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Seems to be the new way... Windstream was 1-2 years before the buyout by the hedge funds of Alltel, and that was 1-2 years before the buying by Verizon. What history does Windstream have to do with GTE or Verizon? | |
|
 TimePremium join:2003-07-05 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Why blame Verizon? They are a business who offloaded a set of markets they didn't want. It's the fault of regulators for approving it, and ultimately Fairpoint for buying into it. -- "If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson | |
|
 |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | Re: Why blame Verizon? I blame all three. Look at all the money that Verizon pumped into politicians hands in order to make the deal go through. They are just as guilty as the politicians that took the money and Fairpoint knowing that ultimately they could not handle the extra load. | |
|
 |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Why blame Verizon? What money did Verizon give to politicians to make this deal happen? Blame the regulators and the legislatures fro enticing Verizon to offload the assets, but don't blame Verizon for exploiting the system to their benefit. | |
|
 |  |  |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV 2 edits | Re: Why blame Verizon? said by openbox9:What money did Verizon give to politicians to make this deal happen? Blame the regulators and the legislatures fro enticing Verizon to offload the assets, but don't blame Verizon for exploiting the system to their benefit. Maybe you should look at this website that gives you some details on how much money the telcos pump into out political economy.
»projects.publicintegrity.org/tel···iys.aspx
While it may not be specifically for this particular deal this money is pumped in to woo politicians into anything the telcos want.
While the data is a little old, it has only gone up and not down.
Here is a web page for just Verizon expenditures through 2006.
»projects.publicintegrity.org/tel···=M000055 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Why blame Verizon? So you're implying lobbying dollars were a bribe to gain regulatory approval for this sale? Quite the accusation. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | Re: Why blame Verizon? said by openbox9:So you're implying lobbying dollars were a bribe to gain regulatory approval for this sale? Quite the accusation. Sounds like you need to get back to your regular work at your Verizon desk | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Why blame Verizon? I have a phone on my desk fed by Verizon, but I'm not even remotely employed by them. Don't blame me if you have no proof for your allegation. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | Re: Why blame Verizon? said by openbox9:I have a phone on my desk fed by Verizon, but I'm not even remotely employed by them. Don't blame me if you have no proof for your allegation. What more proof do you want put in from of you so you can refuse to accept?? Greasing the politicians palms with campaign money to get what they want is nothing more than paying them off. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Why blame Verizon? And the same can be said for any other person/entity that has ever contributed a dollar to a campaign. I don't see any proof that Verizon bought regulatory approval to sell assets to Fairpoint. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Why blame Verizon? Uh...how about the fact that only Verizon benefits from this, and everyone with even a tiny bit of intelligence opposed the sale from the beginning?
If not for Verizon`s lobbying dollars, why else would regulators have approved of the sale? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Why blame Verizon? So now we're guilty until proven innocent? I'll be more than happy to believe the accusations if you can show me that Verizon was shown favoritism by regulators because they dropped money in politicians' pockets. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Z801 point 77Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika | Then those politicians should all go to prison for accepting bribes. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Why blame Verizon? Campaign contributions, PACs, are all the 'legal' methods of effectively paying off politicians. Money doesn't go directly into their pockets, but the money gained effectively pays for their views to be heard. This is capitalism 101. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Z801 point 77Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika | Re: Why blame Verizon? Of course it goes to their pockets. It is how they stay in power, it's how they pull their paychecks, and it will be how they get their $50K per speech and a "consulting" job afterward. It's only legal bribery because the bribed are the ones writing the laws. It's a very convenient racket they have. You don't see cops writing themselves tinted window and speeding tickets either.
Any benefit (including campaign contribution) given in exchange for a favor is a bribe. It doesn't matter if it goes in their pocket They should all go to prison. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  WhatNowPremium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC | Re: Why blame Verizon? Company PACs should be banned I heard to many low level managers say they know if they don't give it will be held against them. All contributions should be given individually not bundled. That would level the playing field a little. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Z801 point 77Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika 1 edit | Re: Why blame Verizon? I agree. All contributions other than those made by registered voters should be banned. No special interest groups of any kind, whether corporations, unions, member groups (eg AARP, trade associations etc) should be permitted to contribute. If their individual members or employees choose to on their own and in secret, great. And then it should be a max of $5K per contributor per year total. Political advertising should be heavily regulated. And if they can ban smoking commercials they can ban these propaganda ads by swift boat types and public employee unions looking to pass their pay increases.
Only when contributions are limited to those from individual voters will voters finally get some representation. | |
|
 |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by ropeguru:They are just as guilty as the politicians that took the money and Fairpoint knowing that ultimately they could not handle the extra load. Is Fairpoint a sentient being? | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Plenty of blame to go around:
1. Verizon 2. Regulators 3. Legislators/IRS for allowing the RMT loophole | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| This puzzle me greatly until I realize this is the part of the entitlement mentality. It doesn't matter if the regulators drive a company to bankruptcy but the people deserve service. Perhaps the right thing to do was to regulated where a company can make a profit or minimal regulation at all and allow the greatest number of competitors. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Why blame Verizon? Welcome to 20% rate increases across the board for service then. Also, another provider can come in if they want and lay infrastructure with minimal regulation. But a phone company is expected to push their infrastructure out to the ends of the earth and be affordable for anyone who wants phone service.
I believe the name of one of the fiber companies in FairPoint's NE area is Burlington Telecom. They offer up to 8 Mbps symmetric fiber, triple play options, etc. They seem to be doing just fine. Of course they don't have a team of highly paid weavers crafing the exec's golden parachute... | |
|
 |  |  |  lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Why blame Verizon? said by iansltx:a phone company is expected to push their infrastructure out to the ends of the earth and be affordable for anyone who wants phone service. That is why they have the USF. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Why blame Verizon? Yep. And regulation. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by lesopp:said by iansltx:a phone company is expected to push their infrastructure out to the ends of the earth and be affordable for anyone who wants phone service. That is why they have the USF. And the USF doesn't actually require 100% universal service/coverage in any area, and its funds can't be used for anything except POTS
»edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/···.101.htm | |
|
 |  | | Yes, I agree but, Fairpoint knew this would happen. It's all part of their master plan. All they have to do is go through bankruptcy and they come out the other end smelling like a Rose. | |
|
 |  |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | Re: Why blame Verizon? said by Joe05 :
Yes, I agree but, Fairpoint knew this would happen. It's all part of their master plan. All they have to do is go through bankruptcy and they come out the other end smelling like a Rose. Just from what I am picking up on it doesn't sound like coming out with less debt increase the competency of management. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Why blame Verizon? Yes, but are they really incompetent, or just sly like a fox? | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Don't forget CapGemini and pudding!
For those that work(ed) at Failpoint, you will recall that speech (from the formerly-jumped ship CEO) about serving pudding...
Cap Gemini should be sued for failing to meet expectations it promised to deliver (namely coding a customer support-service system without any proven track record). And for actually updating/repairing code LIVE during call center activity, losing hours and customer information/scheduling.
Previous Fairpoint execs should have their bonus 90% taxed, all perks and "golden parachutes" rescinded, any options/stocks/property rewarded during the 3 months before taking over Verizon and 3 months after.
Current upper management needs to be fired. Training of call centers needs more improvement, equipment, better software and man-power. Current supervisors need better support and reward system. The unions also need more support and cooperation (both directions).
I am not an employee. But I understand there are some good folks there under alot of pressure to deliver with ridiculous expectations suffocating them from unrealistic "uninformed" executives that are completely detached from reality (the Great Northern DSL Aggression).
But I find it amazingly difficult to understand the depth of finagling and lack of accountability that Verizon, Fairpoint, subcontractors, the NE states regulators and FCC have garnered, leaving three states taxpayers not only the burden of unreliable DSL/communications, but also the increase of unemployment, the lost tax revenues promised by Verizon and Fairpoint, the lost income from corporate tax discounts given to these companies for setting up shop and promised wage taxes and then Reverse-Morris or bankruptcy.
Shame on all of them. 
(back to my coffee...) -- Splat | |
|
 | | I saw this coming ... time to call Comcast ... I'm going to call Comcast this week and switch my phone and internet service over to them. I have a bad feeling the service is going to get bad in the coming weeks.
Time to make the switch .... | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Bankruptcy may allow Fairpoint to cut too high wages
Unions are being asked to make concession in recent weeks, despite having predicted problems before the Verizon deal was signed. One of the reasons Verizon dumped their land lines in these states was because costs exceeded revenues PARTLY due to high union pay scales. When Fairpoint failed to cut these pay rates when they took over in order to please the regulators and close the deal, they made their fatal mistake.
Maybe with the bankruptcy filing they can abrogate the union contracts and pay the union workers what they are worth - about half of what they were getting paid. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
 |  See 22 replies to this post |
|
 | | incompetence If management was or is incompetent enough to not know the true gravity of the debt they are taking on, should they not be replaced wholesale? To me, the solution is simple, if you fail as a management team at this level, then you are all out and replaced with a new team. | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Upgrade the plant! This means they *MUST* upgrade the plant to at least U-Verse or FTTP/Docsis 2 grade or the bankruptcy will mean nothing and the company will go under altogether depite bankruptcy. Consumers are fedup with being screwed with vastly outdated last mile technology and even in areas with NO competition and fairpoint sits as the lone-monopoly, consumers will choose none of the above without the upgrades and bankruptcy will mean nothing, my first prediction will at long last come true.. Verizon & possibly AT&T will split the spoils for pennies on the dollar in a liquidation sale and reclaim the assets debt-free! Since tax-payer funded incentives are not on the table anymore or have too much red tape, why not use the bankruptcy laws to wipe clean all the debt from decades of last mile neglect & profiteering? This is not an old idea.. to offload a failing part of a business let them file for bankruptcy, thus protecting the reputation and credit rating of the larger company and re-acquiring the debt-free assets on the cheap. If banks can do it to real estate, why not companies, after all greed is still good, even under the Obama administration... | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Upgrade the plant! Here's the problem: unlike cable plant where DOCSIS upgrades are relatively cheap (less than $100 per custome) even upgrading to ADSL2+ would probably run FairPoint around $200 per customer, maybe a little more. Qwest cited a figure of $175 per customer awhile back, and they STILL don't have ADSL2+ in my of the areas they serve. | |
|
 |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | The spinoff commitments the PUCs extracted from FP, however small, just all become invalid in bankruptcy court. | |
|
 | | anyone surprised by this  | |
|
 |  tenpin784I Went To The Dark Side? join:2001-03-30 New Durham, NH | Re: anyone Nope. Not at all. | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | In other news ... I think I'm going to go take over the mortgages of a few homes their owners no longer want, perhaps a few car notes as well. Who cares if I have no plan to actually pay for it all, I'm just going to file bankruptcy!
Oh wait, when I file bankruptcy, my assets are sold to pay my debtors so this won't work for me. -- "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln | |
|
 |  Z801 point 77Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika | Re: In other news ... People do that all the time now, it's called Loan Modification.
Buy on terms you can't afford, then tell the bank to modify the loan or they take and even bigger hit on the house with foreclosure. | |
|
 | | A SCAM and you the taxpayer will pay for it ! Well you have to love it.
The following statement was in a letter on Oct,14 2009, It was sent to
Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230
Re: Vermont State Priorities for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP)
"Our most highly recommended applications are the proposals of Vermont Telephone and FairPoint Communications in the Infrastructure category, the Vermont Council on Rural Development in the Sustainable Broadband Adoption category, and the Vermont Department of Libraries in the Public Computing Centers category. Vermont has engaged in significant efforts to improve access to broadband service. In 2007, Governor Douglas sought and received overwhelming support from the Vermont Legislature for the passage of Act 79, which established the goal of universal access to broadband and mobile wireless services in Vermont. Vermont has sought and received binding regulatory commitments from major telecommunications companies, including FairPoint Communications, Inc. (FairPoint) to expand broadband service in Vermont. FairPoint has done an excellent job of meeting these commitments. The new service area proposed by FairPoint in Vermont would make additional expansions to households without broadband service in one of the most remote regions of Vermont, the Northeast Kingdom. Because the service area proposed by FairPoint would qualify as a remote area under the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), Vermont supports FairPoints request for grant funding under that program. However, if not funded by BIP, we would also recommend FairPoints proposal to you under BTOP.1"
SO my fears came true, Fair point has had many complaints throughout Maine, NH and Vermont.
Our state in its wisdom supports FairPoint in its request for federal money in not one program but two. Now putting an extra tax burden on all taxpayers in America. At the same time this is going on the file for bankruptcy !!! What a scam SEE - »www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/10···942.html
I would love to start and run a company like Fairpoint using tax payers dollars while running it into the ground so I do not have to pay bills. What a scam. Could it be, the recent bad publishing's about Burlington telecomm is being used to hide the TRUTH behind Fairpoint What a scam. Lobbyists from large incumbent telecomms invest millions upon millions of dollars fighting honest community run networks What a scam. Who is looking to grab your tax dollars - Community based networks or the larger Privately run Telcos What a scam Larger based telcos claim community based networks do not know what they are doing. Well who is going bankrupt? What a scam.
A good private / public local Fiber optic to the home telecommunications network run by an elected board is the only honest way way the United States will survive
Please contact The NTIA as well as your local state reps on this issue | |
|
 | | Guess whos next... Frontier takes over here next year, I wonder what will happen. | |
|
 |  Z801 point 77Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika | Re: Guess whos next... No matter what happens, it will be corporate lobbying dollars that get it done. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| You'll get a company who cares about you but doesn't have the money to do anything about it. The result: you'll be stuck on Frontier copper for the next ten years, unless some competitor builds a better network alongside.
Frontier is a bit bigger right now than FairPoint so I don't think it will be as bad for affected folks, but you definitely won't get FiOS. Maybe 10/1 DSL if you're lucky eventually, though it will be cheap. | |
|
 | | Hah I bet Karl wet him self in excitement.  | |
|
 SteveConIBEW 2222 Boston, MAPremium join:2004-09-02 Burlington, MA | Hey "Frontier-land" Regulators... This is your wake up call. There will be plenty more.
The question is:
Will you listen? -- UNIONS: The anti-theft device for working people. | |
|
 | | Providing any sort of rural service is hard. I know; I'm a rural ISP.
No one knows whether Fairpoint anticipated a need to go bankrupt (to shed debt and renegotiate labor contracts and pension plans) or whether it was sold a pig in a poke, but in the end it doesn't matter. Rural telcos are in a serious bind, especially with the threat of "network neutrality" regulation (which would make their Internet services unprofitable just as consumers are moving to the Net for telephony and video). | |
|
 |  | | Re: Providing any sort of rural service is hard. Brett Glass,
Please explain how the net neutrality rules proposed by this FCC in the current NPRM would make rural ISP services unprofitable? If that is the case, why are there many other rural WISPs who support net neutrality, so long as there are reasonable network management carve outs? AT&T operated for two years under FCC net neutrality merger conditions, during which time they invested more, including building out to more rural areas, and their profits went up.
I know you believe that this policy would hurt your business, but there is no evidence to support this belief. Furthermore, your political acumen is terrible, as the other regulatory favors you want from the FCC (special access, spectrum) are less likely the more you rant hysterically about this policy. All you are doing is helping the Bell Companies, who want to keep your special access rates high, and any spectrum out of your hands. | |
|
 |  |  1 edit | Re: Providing any sort of rural service is hard. said by JimZsz :
Brett Glass,
Please explain how the net neutrality rules proposed by this FCC in the current NPRM would make rural ISP services unprofitable?
It would outlaw the business models which many rural ISPs use to make service affordable and their businesses sustainable. It would increase their bandwidth costs, prevent them from stopping abuse, and lower their quality of service, causing them to lose customers and harming those customers who remain.
If that is the case, why are there many other rural WISPs who support net neutrality, so long as there are reasonable network management carve outs?
There are not many rural WISPs (or even many ISPs) who support this onerous regulation of their industry. Of course, there are always a few misinformed or gullible people who don't understand the full impact of the proposed rules or have been sold a bill of goods. But they're a tiny minority.
AT&T operated for two years under FCC net neutrality merger conditions, during which time they invested more, including building out to more rural areas, and their profits went up.
Those conditions were very different from what would be imposed by the FCC under the current NPRM.
I know you believe that this policy would hurt your business, but there is no evidence to support this belief.
There is very strong evidence to support it. See my many filings in the docket. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Providing any sort of rural service is hard. said by [bquote=JimZsz :
Please explain how the net neutrality rules proposed by this FCC in the current NPRM would make rural ISP services unprofitable?
If that is the case, why are there many other rural WISPs who support net neutrality, so long as there are reasonable network management carve outs?
There are two business models going on here...
Incumbent telco DSL and TV cable ISPs have an existing "captive market" within a small fixed and existing footprint with high density take-up. That with very low installation costs (typically under $50), they have a gross advantage over a WISP.
A WISP often charges three to six times as much per installation and much less take-up density per an AP radius.
The cost for wholesale bandwidth drops significantly for the number of subscribers. That means a WISP is on a tighter budget and can't offer "all you can eat" data plans.
Therefore, a WISP has to limit the bandwidth per subscriber. That can be part of their contractual agreement. If you don't like it, you can go find another ISP. | |
|
 | | FYI .. e-mail servers having issues ... I just saw this on TV ...WMUR ... channel 9 news is saying ... FairPoint is having email server issues ... | |
|
 |  | | Re: FYI .. e-mail servers having issues ... Don't give up on the old bell system, switching to comcast doesn't help the people that have been out there working on those lines for 100 years. | |
|
 |
|