Analyst Give Thumbs Down to Verizon-Fairpoint Deal
The companies are planning to forge ahead anyway
The Verizon-Fairpoint deal in New England is still under review and it’s not looking good for moving ahead. Since the get go, consumer advocates have been saying
that Fairpoint won’t be able to provide the proposed services. Now that opinion is being reiterated by an analyst
, John Antonuk, hired by the Public Utilities Commission to review the deal.
“Antonuk fears that FairPoint might have financial problems, stop paying dividends to investors, lose its credit rating, forego capital improvements, and harm the telecommunications market.”
FairPoint continues to insist that the debt it will be taking on is “healthy” and manageable and will allow them to grow the business and offer the area’s customers the services that they’re seeking. Antonuk made suggestions to improvements on FairPoint’s plans but doesn’t think that moving ahead on schedule is a good idea. This doesn’t mean that the deal is off; FairPoint still hopes the purchase will go through in January and be fully operational next June.
PUC hires what they want to hear What did you expect to hear from a consultant hired by a PUC that has already declared they are against the deal. The 1st rule of being a succe$$ful consultant is to deliver the results the client wants to hear.
My Web Page
What a great idea! Brilliant! You have a company that wants to provide service and one that does not. Let's make the one that does not stay. After all an analyst knows everything.
| |said by openbox9:Absolutely. Their attitude almost seems to be "if Verizon wants it, then it automaticaly must be bad". Now I can fully understand how people in these states can view Verizon management as a bunch of rat bastards; I feel that same way about them, for much the same reasons. But if Verizon stays as the region's provider, they're gonna get nothing, zilch, nada, from them. And there's no way these "consumer advocates" or PUC members can force Verizon to do anything when it comes to broadband deployment. These guys are just shooting themselves in the foot.
Yep, see how well the analysts, consumer groups, and unions like it when Verizon is forced to maintain a market that they don't want. I foresee no capital expenditures for infrastructure improvement and just enough O&M expenditure to maintain what they currently have enough to keep the regulators off of their back.
When it comes to broadband deployment, smaller regional telcos have a much better track record of deploying broadband than does Verizon. Instead, Verizon management has chosen to concentrate investment on delivering TV over optical fiber to only a portion of their subscriber base. If I were these people, I'd tell VZ not to let the door hit them on the way out, and say good riddance.
Of course all of this is probably just posturing and negotiating in order to try to get the best deal.
| |mouseferatuToo many cats, Too many micePremium,MVM
Im not sure
Re: What a great idea!
said by tschmidt:The dilemma that New Hampshire faces is further complicated by the fact that much of Southern New Hampshire is, effectively, a distant suburb of Boston, and is already on FIOS.
VT, NH, and ME are faced with a dilemma.
At first I though it might be a good idea having a company who's business model is focused on rural areas. But the more I learn the more concerned I am that not only will they not be able to build out next generation services they may not be able to effectively manage the existing network.
Many of us who commute to work in the city or on the 128 tech loop every day depend on good HSI to telecommute when we can. Good HSI is something that many areas here had never experienced before the advent of FIOS.
It is the current "plan" of FairPoint to revert the Southern NH FIOS accounts to DSL. As there is no DSL available to most of us, that leaves us in a rather dismal place. Comcast is crippling along on the less-than-adequate Adelphia equipment that was under-maintained for years, and there is no other game in town.
Verizon services are excellent, but they have always groused about the fact that they got the whole enchilada of rural services when they purchased New England Telephone. What they wanted was Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
Isn't it nice if they can keep all of the high revenue generation areas and dump all of the problem areas? And even better, dump them on an already failing utility besides?
I presume its to hell with all of us who get stuck with their mess...
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crispy and good with catsup."
hmmmm Keep in mind, a sale from VZ to another company was rejected in part of NY state. Right afterwards, VZ announced FiOS expansion into that area. If VZ wants to sell the three states, that's fine with me but for frickin sake how about selling to a financially stable "telecom" company.