SubscribePromises, promises. The one thing you can always count on with mergers and acquisitions: the promise what they’ll bring you tomorrow is better than what you have today, but only if you approve the deal. The concept of forward momentum from change is very compelling when it comes to technology. The lesson people have to learn is that not all change is good, and not all promises are always kept. For New Englanders drawn into the transfer of their telephone service from Verizon to FairPoint Communications, the allure of faster broadband certainly sounded good, with promises made in July 2008 that 75% of Vermont would have access to FairPoint DSL service by the end of that year.
http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Fairpoint Announces Huge Expansion 9-30-08.flvThis report, aired on September 30, 2008 on WPTZ Plattsburgh (viewable in Vermont) also displayed a company-made sign promising that 100% of Vermont would have broadband service available from FairPoint by 2010. But the numbers were already in dispute when another station serving Vermont, WCAX in Burlington, reported that same day that just 80% of customers would have access by that time:
http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington FairPoint Promises Internet Expansions 9-30-08.flvWhy the discrepancy? After all, the visual material on display at the town hall meeting covered by both stations clearly showed a map claiming 100% coverage.
With the benefit of time, the answer turns out to be that promises made by one company official were not always repeated by others. Indeed, FairPoint has a history of tempering enthusiasm. Enthusiasm that sometimes originated from the company itself.
Watch in amazement as the numbers drop and the excuses mount. As the Bennington Banner quoted a FairPoint spokesman in 2008, the numbers and scope of the actual rollout was considerably smaller than the sweeping improvements being promised:
“By 2010, we hope to have at least 80 percent of households in the state with DSL access,” Fastiggi said. “We hope to have every customer in half of our exchanges to have access by 2010 as well.” According to Fastiggi, though, the expansion does not mean that every house in these towns will receive access to the service. “We’re doing certain areas in each town — nothing we’re doing encompasses the entire town,” Fastiggi said. “I don’t want to say we’re expanding bit by bit, but we are moving neighborhood by neighborhood.“
New Englanders, at the time of these announcements, were hopeful, but skeptical whether or not the company would meet its goals. They were right to be.
As for those wireless connections promised to the most rural areas of the state, the company did sign a contract with Nortel Networks and Airspan Networks to construct a network based on the aging fixed wireless 802.16d standard. Known as “fixed WiMAX,” the technology is largely being abandoned by many providers in favor of the newer mobile WiMAX standard IEEE 802.16e, which has a lot more bells and whistles. But the technology FairPoint wants to deploy will function for a basic wireless fixed “broadband” service, albeit a comparatively slow one, operating at 1-3Mbps.
So how is the company doing with its DSL “improvements?” Not so good. Since these announcements, the company has fallen behind schedule on virtually everything, and was one of the few providers to actually lose broadband DSL customers during the second half of 2008 as many switched to another provider or simply gave up. They are set to lose MANY more in 2009, for reasons that will become obvious soon enough.
Other stories of interest:
Stop worrying about fairpoint. It is between the states Verizon and fairpoint and has nothing to do with caps.
Speak for yourself Ken. I live in Brattleboro, VT and think this is very on point summarizing of what our phoneco has done to us. We had hopes for fiber from Verizon but thats all gone. Verizon does not cap people and FairPoint has toyed with the idea of caps. Now we are all stuck here. When an advanced company like Verizon leaves us with a small independent company like FairPoint our Internet service goes downhill and may well be capped. VT should have never approved the deal and now the same thing might happen to all those people being sold to Frontier and they have the 5 gigabyte suggested limit. The regulators should turn the deal down! I am living through this as proof. A company may not cap today but will tomorrow and people need to know.
VT cindy: I understand VT should have never approved the deal but they did and just like you we the people have no say in the matter. Will somebody else cap? Nobody knows. I thought it was a phone issue anyway. I do not think fairpoint even has a TV service but there is no excuse for not providing the same service over copper. Verizon did not see a viable business model it your area and they wanted out and out they went. So dont yell at me yell at the people that blessed the deal. Fine bunch they must be but they have your best intrests at heart…not.
Cindy I calmed down some and it was not your fault. I live in a big city and Verizon fiber is just as far way as it is for you but in my case they have no excuse they want to share why we cant have fiber. As far as im concerned there should be one big regulated provider… not a mess of smaller ones. The whole thing is getting out of hand to deal with these basement garage providers. There is no oversight no regulation no anything. You put up a few wires and your in the club. Each with their own ideas how things should work. Even im stuck with the idea of caps and any time they want to do it they will, no usage meters, no test markets, its allready moving forward. I might have a bigger cap at more cost then you will. I dont know but it is moving forward. I ment no dis respect but today we all are in the same boat and it makes me as jumpy as you not knowing. I can not afford a $100 cable it is not worth it ill sell the computer and go out and watch grass grow or watch paint dry. Ken
As “Part Four” correctly emphasizes, it was FairPoint’s promises of much expanded rural DSL availability that drove the PUC approval process foreword in Maine, and it seemed in Vermont. Some claimed that DSL technology wouldn’t support what FairPoint was promising, but those concerns were cast aside. Without those promises, which notably weren’t guaranteed with any money up front, there seemed little chance that the sale would have been approved.