Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category Vermont Regulators Deny FairPoint Deal
Entire New England Deal Could Be At Risk
(old news - 01:17PM Friday Dec 21 2007)
tags: coverage · business · telco · Verizon Online DSL · Fairpoint Communications
Tipped by ltt75 See Profile
Regulators have denied FairPoint Communications’ planned purchase of Verizon's network in Vermont, according to the Burlington Free Press. The decision puts Verizon's entire $2.7 billion plan to offload their Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont networks in jeopardy. The plan aimed to use a Reverse Morris Trust to obliterate $1.7 billion in Verizon debt, and gain a $600 million tax write off. Verizon theoretically could then focus on FiOS and wireless revenue in more profitable States instead of low ROI DSL expansion into rural America.

However, unions and consumer advocates were concerned that Fairpoint couldn't effectively function under that sort of debt load. Vermont regulators agreed, issuing the following statement:
The Board found that FairPoint had not demonstrated that it would be financially sound as it seeks to operate the newly-acquired territories in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — a service territory that has five times the number of access lines as FairPoint presently has. However, the Board also explained that except for the financial risks associated with the transaction, it could approve the merger, subject to a series of conditions.
The board notes that the deal could be positive for New Englanders given Verizon has no interest in rural America -- but the $2.5 billion Fairpoint would need to borrow to complete the deal would be too risky. "They did not have enough money to run the state as it should be run," says a union worker to the Associated Press. "Where is it going to come from? The telecommunications world is wicked expensive."

One report suggested that Fairpoint planned to avoid giving anyone a raise for seven years in order to stay in sound financial shape. It's somewhat of a lose-lose scenario for rural New Englanders. Verizon has no interest in serving them, yet Fairpoint might not have survived long enough to do so either. Fairpoint also planned to stick with DSL, which obviously would have nixed FiOS deployment in those States.

Update: Verizon has offered up their position on the ruling here.

Related:
  1. How Fairpoint Plans To Pay For Verizon Deal
  2. Unions Take Aim At Verizon Fairpoint Tax Writeoff
  3. Fairpoint Deal Moves Forward
  4. Verizon Sale to FairPoint Approved By Maine Regulators
  5. New Hampshire Approves Fairpoint Deal
  6. Verizon/Fairpoint Deal a Lose-Lose Scenario For Consumers
  7. Special Sunday Meeting May Block Verizon-Fairpoint Sale
  8. Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks
Forums » Vermont Regulators Deny FairPoint Deal
view: topics flat text 
Post a:
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

What will Verizon do

Is it worth it to them to wind down their business in VT without selling it? Are they going to give Fairpoint a better deal? Or just raise prices so they can cover their operating costs and debt? How does this tie in with the USF?
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL

Re: What will Verizon do

How about let their plant and service dwindle into the bare minimum required by the regulators.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA

They have already dropped the price by over $200 million in the proposed Maine settlement. However a larger better financed telco than Fairpoint would still want a better price than that. I'm sure glad I'm not a Fairpoint customer in one of the 17 states outside of New England because if this deal ever goes through they won't have any money to improve service anywhere else.
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

That's really the approach they should take: Just keep reducing service so that northern New England is as profitable as the rest of the country, even if that means service there goes into the toilet. Eventually, Vermont will THROW them out.

The state cannot reasonably expect them to support underperforming operations. It is an immoral abuse of state power.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: What will Verizon do

said by bicker See Profile :

The state cannot reasonably expect them to support underperforming operations. It is an immoral abuse of state power.
No that is why there are state public utility commissions rather then Federal so regulated utilities are able to request tariff rates that reflect local conditions.

I fail to see what is immoral about government requiring regulated companies provide certain services.

/tom
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

Re: What will Verizon do

It's called an unfunded mandate. It's immoral when the federal government imposes one on state governments, and doubly so when any government imposes one on private institutions.

As long as the public utility commission approves tariffs such that the business can satisfy its fiduciary responsibility to its owners to invest their resources in the best interests of the owners, then there is no problem. Barring that, the business unquestionably should be allowed to sell their assets and stop wasting more resources on the under-performing asset.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: What will Verizon do

said by bicker See Profile :

and doubly so when any government imposes one on private institutions.
Now I understand your posts. You and I have very different notions about the relationship between Government (i.e. the people) and private enterprise.

My view is citizen voluntarily come together and delegate some of their autonomy to government in order to protect the common good. In this view it is government's role to define rules by which private enterprise operate. The role of private enterprise is to increase to common good, not necessarily that of individuals. Capitalism is a fantastic mechanism to organize labor and capital. However let entirely to itself it also has a number of highly negative consequences. I agree it is the fiduciary of companies to maximize profit within the rules set by government. In fact that is their only obligation. Where we disagree is role "of the people" to set the rules.

said by bicker See Profile :

As long as the public utility commission approves tariffs such that the business can satisfy its fiduciary responsibility to its owners to invest their resources in the best interests of the owners, then there is no problem.
Those of us in VT/NH/ME with a more cynical view think that may have been Verizon's plan from the beginning - to extract concessions from states they would not have gotten otherwise.

/tom
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

Re: What will Verizon do

said by tschmidt See Profile :

The role of private enterprise is to increase to common good, not necessarily that of individuals.
You must have been out-of-country for the last thirty years! Your ideals are, well, idealistic, but don't reflect the way things actually are in this country, these days.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: What will Verizon do

said by bicker See Profile :

Your ideals are, well, idealistic, but don't reflect the way things actually are in this country, these days.
Exactly, and that is why we are in such a mess.

/tom
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

Re: What will Verizon do

Well, speak for yourself: Perhaps that's why you're in such a mess.

KA3SGM
- -... ...- -
Premium
join:2006-01-17
West Chester, PA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS


edit:
December 22nd, @02:27AM

My comments to Ivan Sidenberg....

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA

edit:
December 21st, @01:27PM

They can't abandon VT...yet...

Their contract with the federal govt. requires them to service EVERY part of their operating area.

Of course, after looking at the way the telcos have been able to buy off the Republican controlled FCC so well, anything is possible!

MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation

Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...

said by qworster See Profile :

Their contract with the federal govt. requires them to service EVERY part of their operating area.
I think the Telco's have been "servicing" their customers for a hundred years now. I don't know about you, but my ass is getting a bit sore.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™
duked

join:2000-08-12
Brunswick, ME
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...

Did anyone get this email

Dear Verizon New England Inc. Customer,

Pending approval of the Maine, Vermont & New Hampshire public utilities commissions, Verizon has agreed to transfer control of Verizon New England Inc. assets in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire to FairPoint Communications. After the transfer, your new local service provider will be FairPoint Communications. We currently expect that this transfer will occur between January 31 and May 1, 2008.

Beginning December 2007, Verizon will cease providing paper-free billing. It is Verizon’s current understanding that FairPoint Communications will reinstate paper-free billing at a future date.

It has been a pleasure serving you.

Sincerely,
Verizon

JUmping the gun a little?????
bogey780

join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA

They'll keep doing what they've been doing.

It's interesting to see the duality of opinions. It seems a lot of people see no problem with demanding that an incumbent always operate landline service even at a loss but then demand they be given no special treatment and have to just accept any attempt to eat away at their profits.

It seems that people won't be happy till the telecoms operate at a loss everywhere... but then they'll be angry that their phone isn't as reliable as it used to be back when telephones were a federally protected monopoly.

Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk.

I personally am shocked that people can't draw correlations and connections as they once could.

RandyStevenson

@comcast.net


thumbs down from:
TK Junk Mail See Profile

Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...

said by bogey780 See Profile :

It seems a lot of people see no problem with demanding that an incumbent always operate landline service even at a loss but then demand they be given no special treatment and have to just accept any attempt to eat away at their profits.
Megadittos, bogey780! People forget that the primary purpose of a corporation is to enrich their stockholders. Customers should only be given the minimum level of service to keep them paying, nothing more. Damm customers, give them 6Mb and before the day is over, they're crying for 10Mb.

Furthermore, we need to bust up the gobdam unions and drastically cut back the worker's pension and health care benefits. If some employee doesn't like it, they can leave. There are plenty of people looking for work. Dammit, we need to maximize the stockholders profit, not give it to some whiny budding socialist employee that thinks s/he's entitled to it!

Are you with me, boy?
bogey780

join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA

Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...

Very poor attempt.

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·Verizon Online DSL


edit:
December 22nd, @02:28PM

said by bogey780 See Profile :

It seems that people won't be happy till the telecoms operate at a loss [...] Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk.

I personally am shocked that people can't draw correlations and connections
Indeed. Shocking.

(quoted emphasis mine. just in case.)

MrMoody
Under the black helicopters

join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq

said by bogey780 See Profile :

Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk.
Bad example. In most if not all US states, auto liability insurance is required and any company doing business in that state can't get out of insuring high risk drivers. Usually, uninsurable high risk drivers go into the state assigned risk pool, and all the companies get their share of premiums and pay their share of losses from that pool. It's another case where government requires them to eat a loss in order to allow them to do business. In the end, the good drivers pay for the really bad ones, the same as low cost telco customers pay for the high cost ones.
--
The public is a poor business manager.
bogey780

join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA

Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...

But an insurance company can back out of a state. And they can increase premiums across the board or specifically for certain classes (pending regulatory approval).

TNSTAAFL.

Someone pays. Every Verizon customer outside of the states being sold benefits from their sale. Everyone inside those states benefit from the sale not happening because they need those deep pockets to keep their slim profit margined phone service running smoothly.

TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast

said by qworster See Profile :

Their contract with the federal govt. requires them to service EVERY part of their operating area.
Well there is "ABANDONMENT" and there is abandonment. And Verizon can downgrade service and maintenance significantly without OFFICIALLY abandoning an area. If VT isn't reasonable, they WILL be harming their states citizens.
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
Whoever has the majority in congress controls the FCC. So that'd be the Democrats.
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
·DSL EXTREME
·EarthLink


edit:
December 21st, @08:17PM

WRONG!

The FCC is a part of the Executive Branch of Govt., and FCC Commissioners are apppointed by the President. There are five Commissioners, three from one party and two from the other. Though I suppose it's theoretically possible for a Republican President to appoint three Democrats, Bush didn't do this, which means that ALL FCC business is controlled by the Republicans, via the 3-2 margin. It's also NO coincidence that virtually ALL anti consumer (pro big business) decisions the FCC has made the in past 7 years are/were always by a 3-2 majority, with the three REPUBLICAN Commissioners voting yes and the two Democrats voting no.
peerimpact

join:2005-11-07
Londonderry, VT

Good Riddance Verizon

I hate to say it but Comcast who took over the abysmal Adelphia in Vermont are going to love this .

Comcast has provided better service than Adelphia ever did and is rolling out Digital Voice service in Vermont .

My opinion is Good Riddance to Verizon who charge over $45 for a standard land line in VT .

If Vermont wants to become the USAs first eState by 2010 they better get moving and get some real broadband deployed like Comcast offers .
jester121

join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk

Re: Good Riddance Verizon

Dear Sir,

The statements contained in your post are unacceptable for this forum -- all Comcast-related posts on BBR must blatantly one-sided rants, and should refer only to Comcast's oversubscribing, bittorrent-connection-blocking, greedy, conniving business practices.

The Management
notwrth10

join:2007-03-03
1001EB

said by peerimpact See Profile :

If Vermont wants to become the USAs first eState by 2010 they better get moving and get some real broadband deployed like Comcast offers .
LOL... you think comcast is going to give you bandwidth much less real broadband? You need to speak to my parents. I am sure they can enlighten you on what comcast calls "broadband deployment".
whiteyonenh

join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable

Well...

I hope it sticks... Fairpoint really doesn't have the funds necessary to upgrade the network. Borrowing money is really quite risky, many areas that have some sort of broadband would blow Fairpoint's idea of DSL out of the water. I will not be switching to Fairpoint, as I'm not in the mood for the current pricing that i am able to dig up from some of their other areas.

For what they are charging for 1.5/1 DSL I can get 10/1 cable for the same or less cost. IMHO Fairpoint will only be relevant in the parts of NH, ME, and VT that don't have other options other than dialup or sattelite.
droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME
·Great Works Internet

Re: Well...

In several of the Maine Verizon markets that would be acquired by Fairpoint, they already have 20/1 DSL service for 60$ a month, and they can also get phone through the same DSL carrier. Not to say cable doesn't matter, just that cable is only available in something like 60% of Maine.

I figure in a Fairpoint world they'd kick that CLEC out of the COs pretty quick so they could offer their crazy 80 a month 1.5/1 service you speak of.

From what I've heard it isn't even their service. Fairpoint outsources their data services to someone else on their behalf.
droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME
·Great Works Internet

I hate to say it but....

I hate to say it but I think I'd rather have AT&T buy out the market than Fairpoint. They won't, but, while AT&T's current offering is behind Verizon's FIOS, at least it isn't as far back as Fairpoint, and they DO have the money to do something about it.
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

From the Boston Globe

David O'Brien, commissioner of the Vermont Public Service Department, which represents ratepayers, said he felt FairPoint and Verizon could give the board a new proposal soon.

"We remain open to the potential for a modified proposal that would better meet the needs of Vermont consumers, as outlined in the board's order," O'Brien said at a Montpelier news conference.
Forums » Vermont Regulators Deny FairPoint Deal


Wednesday, 20-Aug 18:33:50 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9 years online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com.