Milton, Vermont

Jesse and his nearby neighbors on the west side of Milton are frustrated.  They live just 20 minutes away from Burlington, the largest city in the state of Vermont.  Despite the proximity to a city with nearly 40,000 residents, there is no cell phone coverage in western Milton, no cable television service, and no DSL service from FairPoint Communications.  For this part of Milton, it’s living living in 1990, where dial-up service was one’s gateway to the Internet.

Jesse and his immediate neighbors haven’t given up searching for broadband service options, but they face a united front of intransigent operators who refuse to make the investment to extend service down his well-populated street.

“After many calls to Comcast, they eventually sent us an estimate for over $17,000 to bring service to us, despite being less than a mile from their nearest station,” Jesse tells Vermont Public Radio.  “They also made it very clear that there was no plan at any point in the future, 2010 or beyond, to come here unless we paid them the money.”

Jesse and his neighbors want to give Comcast money, but not $17,000.

For at least 15 percent of Vermonters, Jesse’s story is their story.  Broadband simply remains elusive and out of reach.

Three years ago, Vermont’s Republican governor Jim Douglas announced the state would achieve 100 percent broadband coverage by 2010, making Vermont the nation’s first “e-State.”

Vermont Public Radio reviewed the progress Vermont is making towards becoming America’s first e-State. (January 20, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Gov. Douglas

In June 2007 the state passed Act 79, legislation that established the Vermont Telecommunications Authority to facilitate the establishment and delivery of mobile phone and Internet access infrastructure and services for residents and businesses throughout Vermont.

The VTA, under the early leadership of Bill Shuttleworth, a former Verizon Communications senior manager, launched a modest broadband grant program to incrementally expand broadband access, often through existing service providers who agreed to use the money to extend service to unserved neighborhoods.

The Authority also acts as a clearinghouse for coordinating information about broadband projects across the state, although it doesn’t have any authority over those projects.  Lately, the VTA has been backing Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” Initiative, except it promotes the state as a great choice for fiber, not just one or two communities within Vermont.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Vermont 3-22-10.mp4[/flv]

Vermont used this video to promote their bid to become a Google Fiber state.  (2 minutes)

Some of the most dramatic expansion plans come from the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network.  ECFiber, a group of 22 local municipalities, in partnership with ValleyNet, a Vermont non-profit organization, is planning to implement a high-capacity fiber-optic network capable of serving 100% of homes and businesses in participating towns with Internet, telephone and cable television service.  In 2008, the group coalesced around a proposal to construct a major fiber-to-the-home project to extend broadband across areas that often don’t even have slower speed DSL.

The ECFiber project brought communities together to provide the kind of broadband service private companies refused to provide. Vermont Public Radio explores the project and the enthusiasm of residents hopeful they will finally be able to get broadband service. (March 8, 2008) (24 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

ECFiber's Partner Communities

The Vermont towns, which together number roughly 55,000 residents, decided to build their own network after FairPoint Communications and local cable companies refused to extend the reach of their services.  Providers claim expanding service is not financially viable.  For residents like sheep farmer Marian White, interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that means another year of paying $60 a month for satellite fraudband, the speed and consumption-limited satellite Internet service.

White calls the satellite service unreliable, especially in winter when snow accumulates on the dish.  Unlike many broadband users who vegetate for hours browsing the web, White actually gets an exercise routine while trying to get her satellite service to work.

“I open a window and I take a pan of water and, a cup at a time, I launch warm water at the satellite dish until I have melted all the snow off the dish,” Ms. White says. “It works.”

Other residents treat accessing the Internet the same way rural Americans plan a trip into town to buy supplies.

Kathi Terami from Tunbridge makes a list of things to do online and then, once a week, travels into town to visit the local public library which has a high speed connection.  Terami downloads Sesame Street podcasts for her children, watches YouTube links sent by her sister, and tries to download whatever she thinks she might want to see or use over the coming week.

A fiber to the home network like ECFiber would change everything for small town Vermonters.  The implications are enormous according to project manager Tim Nulty.

“People are truly afraid their communities are going to die if they aren’t on the communications medium that drives the country culturally and economically,” he says. “It’s one of the most intensely felt political issues in Vermont after health care.”

Despite the plan’s good intentions, one obstacle after another has prevented ECFiber from making much headway:

• The VTA rejected the proposal in 2008, calling it unfeasible;
• Plans over the summer and fall of 2008 to approach big national investment banks ran head-on into the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which caused banks to stop lending;
• An alternative plan to build the network with public debt financing, using smaller investors, collapsed along with Lehman Brothers on September 14, 2008;
• An attempt by Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) to insert federal loan guarantees into the stimulus bill in February 2009 was thwarted by partisan wrangling;
• Attempts to secure federal broadband grant stimulus funding has been rejected by the Commerce Department;
• Opposition to the plan and objections over its funding come from incumbent providers like FairPoint, who claim the project is unnecessary because they will provide service in those areas… eventually.

For the indefinite future, it appears Ms. White will continue to throw warm cups of water out the window on cold winter mornings.

Vermont Edition takes a comprehensive look at where the state stands in broadband and wireless deployment. (April 8, 2009) (46 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

For every Tunbridge resident with a story about life without broadband, there are many more across Vermont living with hit or miss Internet access.

Take Marie from Middlesex.

Most residents in more rural areas of Vermont get service where they can from FairPoint Communications

“I am in Middlesex, about a half-mile off Route 2, and five minutes from the Capitol Building. Yet up until just recently, we had no sign of high-speed Internet. I understand that my neighbors just received DSL a few weeks ago, but when I call FairPoint, they tell me it’s still not available at my house, which is a few hundred yards up the hill. Hopefully, they’re wrong and I’ll see DSL soon,” she says.

Marie is pining for yesterday’s broadband technology — FairPoint’s 1.5Mbps basic DSL service, now considered below the proposed minimum speeds to qualify for “broadband” in the National Broadband Plan.  For Marie, it’s better than nothing.

Geryll in Goshen also lacks DSL and probably wouldn’t want it from FairPoint anyway.

“We have barely reliable landline service. A tech is at my house at least three times per year. I was told the lines are so old they are decaying. Using dial-up is impossible. I use satellite which is very expensive and is in my opinion only one step up from dial-up. I am limited to downloads and penalized if I reach my daily limit,” he says.

Many Vermonters acknowledge Douglas’ planned 100-percent-broadband-coverage-by-2010 won’t come close to achievement and many are highly skeptical they will ever see the day where every resident who wants broadband service can get it.

Chip in Cabot is among them, jaded after six years of arguments with FairPoint Communications and its predecessor Verizon about obtaining access to DSL.  It took a cooperative FairPoint engineer outside of the business office to finally get Chip service.  His neighbors were not so lucky, most emphatically rejected for DSL service from an intransigent FairPoint:

“I laughed when Governor Douglas announced his e-State goal “by 2010” three years ago. Now I’m thinking I should have made some bets on this claim. It took years of legal battles and a zoning variance to obtain partial cell coverage here in Cabot. Large parts of the town still do not have any cell coverage. Governor Douglas can perhaps be forgiven – he has no technical knowledge, and as a politician would be expected to be wildly optimistic about such “e-State” claims. The Vermont Telecommunications Authority and the Department of Public Service should know better however. We’re talking about rural areas where there is no financial incentive to provide either DSL or cell service. It will take a huge amount of money to provide service to those remaining parts of the state. I’m not optimistic.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wall Street Journal Vermont Broadband Problems 03-02-09.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal chronicled the challenges Vermonters face when broadband is unavailable to them.  ECFiber may solve these problems.  Some of the stories in our article are reflected in this well-done video.  (3/2/2009 — 4 Minutes)

America's most creative taxing authority, charged with collecting the innovative taxes the state government dreams up

No state can be more innovative in finding new ways to tax, fee, and surcharge residents than New York.  Once it becomes taxable in the Empire State, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes taxable in other states as well.  Now consumers face the prospect of paying new sales taxes on broadband and other services they purchase online, even in cases where federal laws would seem to exclude such possibilities.

New York residents have endured the so-called “Amazon tax” since June 1, 2008 when the state government demanded large, out of state Internet retailers collect and remit sales taxes for online purchases should they result from online advertising.  Although largely ignored by smaller online retailers, large high profile Internet retailers with so-called “affiliate programs” that pay independent websites for referring potential customers faced the choice of cutting ties with their “affiliates” in New York or imposing sales tax on New York customers.

Websites ranging from Overstock.com, Buy.com, Amazon.com, Newegg, and others were all targeted by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.  Overstock and Newegg eventually threw their New York affiliates under the bus to preserve an “unofficial” tax-free shopping experience for New Yorkers.  Buy.com and Amazon both complied with the state, although the latter filed suit challenging the constitutionality of out-of-state sales tax collection.

What made the New York sales tax law different from all the rest is that it delivered an end run around settled federal interstate commerce law.  A Supreme Court decision found it legal for states to demand sales tax payments from businesses that operate within their state, but no such provision was made for businesses who don’t locate an office or store in a particular state.  Buying a new hard drive from an online retailer inside your state?  You’ll be charged sales tax.  Order it from outside of the state, and the company typically won’t try to collect sales tax.

New York wants online businesses to get a new attitude.  It wants sales tax money for orders placed by New Yorkers no matter where your business is located.

As the Great Recession wreaks havoc on state budgets, state lawmakers who don’t want to cut popular spending programs are instead sniffing for new ways to raise revenues.  Some are declaring ‘I Love New York’ for blazing the trail to fatter sales tax coffers.

Colorado's legislature ignited a firestorm of controversy after passing an online sales tax bill into law

One recent example is Colorado, where state lawmakers borrowed liberally from New York’s tax law and passed their own — requiring large online retailers to start collecting sales taxes or provide a summary of residents’ web purchases in the state (so the Colorado taxing authority can pressure residents to declare those purchases and pay sales tax themselves.)  The penalty for not doing so is a fine of several dollars per non-compliant transaction.  Amazon.com, among others, yanked their affiliate program in the state, and some online retailers have declared they won’t comply.  A few proclaimed they would throw away any fine notifications, suggesting the state has no authority to impose such fines for interstate commerce, which is regulated on the federal level.

Rhode Island passed its own sales tax law, and collected almost nothing from it, in part because online retailers outside of Rhode Island almost universally ignored it.  Now the law faces repeal.

Other states like North Carolina and California have endured their own controversies over such legislation.  In North Carolina, Amazon.com threw their affiliates under the bus.  California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a sales tax proposal last year.  There are bills to impose sales taxes on all online purchases in Iowa, New Mexico, Vermont and Virginia.

Meanwhile, New York’s taxing authority has some new ideas on how to expand the scope of sales taxation to include a whole new range of online activities.

The E-Commerce Times reports the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has declared doing practically anything online that involves the transfer of money in return for a service could be subject to New York sales tax:

This new position results in the imposition of sales tax on purchases of services provided over the Internet that would not be subject to sales tax if provided in person by a human being. For example, the purchase of an educational course is not taxable if provided by a live speaker, but the same course may now be considered taxable by the Department if the course is given online.

The Department has painted with a broad brush to conclude in a number of advisory opinions that, among other things, the following services or forms of entertainment are really sales of software when provided over the Internet:

1. e-learning courses;
2. information technology courses;
3. mail-tracking services performed for airlines;
4. loan origination and processing services;
5. automobile insurance policy services;
6. payroll processing services; and
7. video games played on computers located at a business’ facility.

Rhode Island's efforts to collect sales tax on out of state purchases was a flop

The logic used to justify taxation of online services illustrates the time and talent state workers are willing to extend to help fill New York’s dire budget pothole:

The Department is asserting that a purchaser of an online service is controlling the software on the provider’s server by clicking various icons on his or her own computer screen, and thus the purchaser has control over the software; hence the software has effectively been “transferred” to the purchaser. Accordingly, the Department is taking the position that the purchase of an online service is really the purchase of a license to use software, even though the software is being used by the service provider on its own server.

Critics of the taxing authority accuse it of exceeding its legislative mandate.  In fact, the New York State legislature previously considered — and rejected — legislation that would have imposed sales tax on digital downloads like music and movies.  The legislature has been resistant to taxing online activities in hopes of retaining high tech businesses in the state, who might consider locating out of state if it meant avoiding imposing sales tax on consumers.

Of course, online buyers are technically subject to paying sales taxes for every taxable purchase, made in or out of state.  But since most states ask taxpayers to voluntarily report such purchases, the compliance rate is notoriously low.

In New York, the taxing authority has a reputation best summed up as “we don’t play — padlock and seize first, ask questions later.”  Aggressive enforcement against non-compliant retailers is likely, and E-Commerce Times suggests online retailers need to pay attention:

The sales tax is a transfer tax, and sellers collect the tax from purchasers and remit the tax to the Department. However, when a seller fails to collect and remit any tax due, the seller itself becomes liable for the tax, interest and possibly penalties. The Department has not been content simply to apply its new position going forward, but rather has been seeking to apply its position retroactively on audit as well.

There have been instances of the Department auditing online service providers and assessing sales tax as far back as 2005, even though the Department’s first clear administrative guidance with respect to its new position dates from November 2008 (and even though the Department issued administrative guidance in February 2006, that seems to conflict with its present position).

The Times predicts this will all come to a head when the taxing authority sues an online retailer or state resident for non-payment of taxes.  Then it’s up to the courts to decide… when they get around to it.  Remember the lawsuit Amazon.com filed against New York in 2008?  The New York Supreme Court threw out the suit in January 2009, but an appeal was filed with the next court up the chain — the appellate court — July 13th.  It’s still pending.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Online Sales Taxes 4-5-10.flv[/flv]

Here are three reports about the ongoing online sales tax controversy underway in three states (9 minutes):

1. KMGH-TV in Denver reports on a local family running a campaign to repeal the so-called “Amazon tax” in Colorado which resulted in the end of the company’s affiliate program for Colorado residents.
2. WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vermont discusses a proposed Vermont law that would extend sales tax to online purchases.  Local merchants support the proposed law as a way to restore pricing fairness between online and brick and mortar retailers.
3. WTVR-TV in Richmond, Virginia covers that state’s proposed online sales tax bill.  George Peyton from the Retail Merchant’s Association reminds viewers whether or not an online retailer charges them sales tax, they still owe the state the tax — declared on your income tax return.

Comcast's usage meter is now available in 25 states

Comcast customers in at least 25 states have been notified that Comcast’s new usage measurement meter is now up and running.  Comcast introduced a 250 GB monthly usage limit in August 2008 after the Federal Communications Commission stopped the company from throttling usage-intensive file-trading applications.  Comcast has enforced the cap among those customers who regularly exceed it by wide margins, usually warning customers by phone or mail that they must reduce usage or face account suspension.  The usage meter application allows the company to direct customers to the self-measurement tool the company hopes will reduce the need for warnings.

Customers in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin should have already or will receive e-mail from the company officially notifying them about the launch of the usage meter.

Since the meter was introduced, broadband usage and pricing has increased for many customers, but the usage cap has not.  While generous by current standards, an inflexible usage limit will increasingly trap customers who use Comcast broadband service for high quality video streaming, file backups, or file trading activities which can consume considerable bandwidth.

Informally, Comcast has allowed some residential customers to purchase second accounts if they intend to blow past their usage allowance, because the company currently offers no official provisions for those who exceed the limit.

Verizon Communications has made its intentions clear — would-be broadband customers in its service area who are off the FiOS footprint can pound salt.  The Federal Communications Commission issues regular reports on broadband services and their adoption by consumers across the United States.  In the latest report, published this month, customers in Verizon’s current or former service areas who are not being served by Verizon FiOS are behind the broadband 8-ball, waiting for the arrival of DSL service from a company that has diverted most of its time, money, and attention on deploying its fiber-to-the-home service for the big city folks.

One might think the worst DSL availability in the country would be in rural states like Alaska, or territories like Guam, or income-challenged Mississippi.  No, the bottom of the barrel can be found in northern New England and the mid-Atlantic states — largely the current or former domain of Verizon:

Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services by State
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 19

Some might argue that DSL penetration ignores Verizon’s fiber upgrades, but does it?

Providers of High-Speed Connections by Fiber by State as of December 31, 2008
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 20

A survey of the rest of the country calls out Verizon’s inattentiveness to DSL expansion in its remaining service areas not covered by FiOS.

For example: Alabama, Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma all enjoy 80 percent DSL availability.  Utah and Nevada achieved 90 percent coverage.  Even mountainous Wyoming, the least populous state in the country, provides 78 percent of its state’s customers with the choice of getting DSL service.  Yet New York manages only one point higher among its telephone companies, largely because of enormous service gaps upstate.

What happened?  By 2002 Verizon began to realize their future depended on moving beyond providing landline service.  The company began to divert most of its resources to a grand plan to deliver fiber connections to residences in larger markets in its service areas.  While great news for those who live there, those that don’t discovered they’ve been left behind by Verizon.  Northern New England got flushed by Verizon altogether — sold to the revenue-challenged FairPoint Communications who assumed control of Verizon’s problems and managed to make them worse.

The argument that rural broadband is “too expensive” doesn’t fly when looking at DSL availability in the expansive mountain west or rural desert regions.  Compact states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland are far easier to wire than North Dakota, New Mexico or even Texas with its large rural areas (87, 87, and 81 percent coverage, respectively).  Verizon simply doesn’t realize the kind of Return on Investment it seeks from FiOS customers — a dollar amount investors want to see.

Of course, that’s the argument Frontier Communications, and FairPoint behind it, made to regulators in sweeping promises to deliver better broadband service.  FairPoint missed its targets and declared bankruptcy.  Frontier is still in the “promises, promises” stage of its deal to take over millions of rural customers currently served by Verizon.

Burlington Telecom (BT), the city owned-and-operated fiber-based cable, broadband, and telephone provider is mired in debt and is not financially viable in its current form.

Those are the findings of a “blue ribbon” committee tasked with answering questions about the future of the financially-troubled municipally-owned provider serving 4,600 Burlington customers in Vermont.

In an 11-page public report, the committee recommended the city partner with a commercial entity that would assume a majority interest in BT.  As a minority stakeholder, the city could eventually recoup the 17 million dollar investment it has made in the company.

Although some residents have lobbied the city to abandon the 100 percent fiber network to stem ongoing losses, the committee advised against it.

“The city has a considerable asset in BT, and should not give this asset away at a fire sale price,” notes one independent consultant working with the committee. “BT is too important to be jettisoned, in part because it keeps the competition honest.”

Burlington Telecom building and staff

But carrying forward as-is is not a good idea either, the report concludes.

“BT is not viable in relationship to its current debt load of $51 million and its ability to generate earnings to repay this debt. BT cannot meet its principal and interest obligations at this time,” the committee concluded, noting that the company’s current business plan can’t meet future financial challenges either.

As if to underscore that notion, BT this month asked the city of Burlington for a $386,000 loan from to make an interest payment to CitiLeasing by Wednesday, to prevent the company from technically defaulting on its $32 million municipal lease purchase.  On Friday, a judge issued a restraining order forbidding such a loan unless the Vermont Public Service Board agrees.

The committee noted that the reasons for BT’s financial problems weren’t rooted in its “first-class” fiber optic network, or its usefulness to the city.

In summary, the committee and its consultants blamed the problems on these factors:

• HBC found BT overpaid for its fiber network, spending $1,000 per home passed, when fiber build-out prices have dropped in the past few years.

• BT is spending too much money on customer installations.  HBC reports BT could save more than $600 off the $1,600 the company pays to hook up each customer.

• The company uses the same door-to-door marketing company Comcast uses to get new customers.  Additionally, BT contracts with a third party service company to handle installations and service calls.  This work should be done in-house, HBC recommends, as paying a company based on how many installations are performed provides a built-in incentive to cut corners and quality.

• BT’s broadband products are too slow for a compete, handing incumbent cable provider Comcast an unnecessary competitive advantage.  Fiber can blow cable modem service out of the water when competing on speeds, but BT foolishly charges too much money for too slow service topping out at just 8Mbps/8Mbps, for a whopping $71.80 a month.  BT calls that “the ultimate Internet experience.”  It’s not.  HBC predicts broadband will become BT’s most important service, so it is critical for the company to make the product more attractive to customers.

• BT is mired in politics that has nothing to do with its service to the community, and it creates unnecessary distractions that commercial providers do not have.  Some who oppose the municipal fiber project or the current city council use BT as a political football.

• Because it is a public entity, too much financial and strategic business information is open to public review, which includes BT’s competitors.  That gives Comcast and FairPoint advance notice of BT plans, pricing, and growth strategies.  Restructuring as a semi-private entity under local government oversight would help guarantee competitive business information stays out of the hands of the competition.

• BT lacks an effective marketing strategy to convince residents and businesses to change providers.  Without a compelling lineup of services, and a marketing effort to sell them, customers will be reluctant to go through a disruptive switch to BT service.  The provider’s bundled service packages are often compelling (a triple play with basic television and phone service only costs $89 a month, less than $20 more than standalone broadband service), but they often lack the services, speed, and channels consumers want.

• The company does not pay enough attention to customer service strategies.  Customers complain BT does not accept cash payments from walk-up customers, who are told to return with a money order.  From a confusing automated attendant that answers customer calls to inconvenient hours and appointment scheduling, BT needs to hire marketing experts to help restructure how it serves potential and subscribing customers.

Burlington Telecom's fiber broadband speeds are the same uploading and downloading, but there is plenty of room for improvement in speeds at a lower price

• BT utilizes a 200-megabit backbone at a cost of $6,000 a month and a 350-megabit backbone at a monthly cost of $16,331. It is HBCs belief that backbone costs can be reduced considerably, as much as $6,000 per month should be saved through re-negotiation. Costs should be in the neighborhood of $25 to $30 per megabit, as compared to the $40 per megabit of speed now being paid by BT. HBC buys twice as much bandwidth per month than BT and pays only $7,000 more for the additional capacity.

• Finally, the company leaves a lot of potential earnings on the table.  It doesn’t provide local-ad insertions on cable channels and doesn’t leverage its excess broadband capacity with businesses by selling them web hosting, co-location, and speed critical services.  It doesn’t provide value-added services that cable companies now offer, such as caller ID on TV.

The Burlington mayor, Bob Kiss, expressed skepticism at some of the conclusions in the committee’s findings.

Kiss believes refinancing BT’s debt would give the telecom company more time to implement better marketing and service improvements, which could attract new customers and revenue.

For Burlington business leaders, the entire affair is an embarrassment.  Many believe significant harm will come from a city gaining a reputation for defaulting on its obligations.

The conclusion many have reached is that Burlington Telecom was naively planned, without sufficient regard to realistic projections of expenses and revenues, and lacks expertise to effectively compete with other local providers.  Building an advanced fiber network for your community is only as good as the services offered at a price that makes sense.  Alienate customers with ineffective marketing or out of touch product packaging, and your future will be in doubt.

[flv width=”368″ height=”228″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Telecom Saga 12-15 02-01 02-05 02-11-2010.flv[/flv]

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>WCAX-TV in Burlington has followed the BT saga for months.  This video includes five reports covering the company’s future viability (13 minutes)

1. Burlington Telecom Saga Continues (12-15-2009)
2. Burlington Telecom Forces Changes In Burlington City Government (02-01-2010)
3. Burlington Telecom Not Financially Viable (02-05-2010)
4. Burlington Council Gets Blue Ribbon Committee Report (02-11-2010)
5. Burlington Telecom’s Fate Under Discussion (02-11-2010)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFFF Burlington Burlington Telecom’s Future Unclear 02-11-2010.flv[/flv]

WFFF-TV in Burlington reports the telecom company’s future is unclear. (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Burlington Telecom Not Viable.flv[/flv]

WPTZ in Plattsburgh covered the contention over an upcoming interest payment BT needs to pay by Wednesday.  (3 minutes)

Read our complete coverage on Burlington Telecom.