SubscribeIn yesterday’s story, FairPoint Communications learned that the state utility commissions in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, were underwhelmed by their proposal to take control of telephone service formerly provided by Verizon. The regulatory authorities in all three states felt state residents would bear most of the risk, and too few rewards in return for approving the deal. New Hampshire was among the most skeptical.
Vermont wasn’t overwhelmed with what it saw either:
http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington FairPoint's New Plan.flv
But FairPoint returned to the negotiating table to make additional promises and concessions. But would they ultimately keep them?
In late January of last year, FairPoint Communications hammered out deals with all three New England states pondering what a Verizon to FairPoint transfer of telephone service would mean to their residents. Northern New England residents are more likely than not to live in smaller towns and rural communities, and a perennial problem for residents of all three states was consistent access to broadband Internet service. Verizon had made progress on providing DSL service to many residents across all three states, but significant gaps in coverage were always a problem. Those lucky enough to have cable television service, usually provided by Comcast, could obtain broadband access from the cable company. But cable has never offered universal service. The more rural of an area you reside in, the lower the chances the cable line will pass your home.
Maine was first to approve the revised deal, once the state was assured FairPoint had the financial ability to maintain the state’s telephone infrastructure. Vermont was second to approve the deal after the Public Service Board “tweaked” the terms and conditions. Financial stability of FairPoint and customer service were Vermont’s primary concern, and the state insisted that FairPoint reduce its debt load. But local unions representing Verizon remained skeptical that FairPoint was up to the job. Although residents were promised improvements in broadband service, the part Verizon left out is that it would come in the form of copper line DSL service, not the advanced fiber optic network Verizon was installing in cities across the country. WCAX-TV in Burlington reports:
New Hampshire was the last to decide they liked the revised proposal, and approved it as this report detailed back on January 24, 2008 on WMUR-TV:
http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMUR Manchester Deal Must Still Be Considered By Commission 1-24-08.flvThe following day, the New Hampshire Business Report examined the deal more closely as well:
Tomorrow, what FairPoint promised in 2008 regarding broadband in 2009 and beyond.
Other stories of interest:
- Special Report: The Lessons of FairPoint – A Tragedy in New England – Part Two
- Special Report: The Lessons of FairPoint – A Tragedy in New England – Part One
- Unions Say Frontier-Verizon Deal Means Less Money for Broadband
- Massachusetts: Verizon-Friendly Bill Not As Consumer-Friendly As Company Suggests
- Monday May 18 Afternoon Update
This topic has me confused. First it talks about phones then switches over to broadband access Im thinking about 2 houses 10 miles away from anything. They likely have a phone line maybe not. DSL is not an option over those copper wires given that it is dicey at best 2 miles away without a series of relay boxes. A company is going to think long and hard just how much it cost to provide those two houses with DSL and no company in their right mind is going to sling 10 miles of fiber for two customers times the many houses at a great distance it would have to expand to. I think the reason Verizon wants to get out of that type of service. Everybody loves those tightly packed cities and suburbs because that is where you get the most bang for your buck. NC has big cities, Texas has big cities, NY has big cities, the list is endless and that is where the action is. If the government wants equal access to everybody somebody is going to have to pay for it and it won’t be the providers. Did not say it was fair just the way it is and a person paying the feds out of their pay check each week is not going to like the idea of that money being used to connect 5 wheat farmers 2000 miles away in another state. I will not drag politics into my comment for two reasons. 1 – Stop the Cap is not the place. 2 – We all know the drill already.