Political Chowder's NUMBER OF THE WEEK - Sponsored by www.no-deal.org
|
www.no-deal.org
N.C.-based FairPoint provides local and long distance voice, data, Internet, video and broadband services to rural and small urban communities across the country. It owns and operates 30 local exchange companies in 18 states. However, FairPoint doesn't provide local exchange service in the exchanges in which Verizon currently operates in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, thus the acquisition proposition that now is almost a year old (Telecom Policy Report, Feb. 3, 2007). Commenting on the FCC's approval, Gene Johnson, chairman and CEO of FairPoint, says, "In providing the approval for the necessary license transfers related to this merger, the FCC has recognized this transaction is in the best interest of consumers and businesses. As we continue to make progress toward closing this transaction, we look forward to serving our new customers in northern New England and offering enhanced communications products and services." Earlier this week, FairPoint reached an agreement with Covad Communications Company and its affiliate DIECA Communications Inc. on issues relating to the proposed purchase in New Hampshire. Covad had petitioned as an intervener in the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission review of FairPoint's application, and it now supports the measure. Adds Johnson, "Our joint collaboration with Covad on a go-forward basis will ensure that all of our respective customers continue to receive a consistent level of high-quality service." The carrier also has come to terms with the Vermont Department of Public Service regarding its proposed acquisition of Verizon's wireline operations in that state. The deal now requires the approval of the three states' regulatory agencies, and Maine's Public Utilities Commission has already voted to approve an amended stipulation agreement and other conditions, with some remaining matters subject to further deliberations. Despite opposition from the Communications Workers of America and others, the FCC noted in its order released yesterday that "we find that no significant public interest harms are likely to result from the merger, and that public interest benefits are likely to occur." That's not what the two Democrats on the panel are saying, however. According to written dissent from Commissioner Michael Copps, "Petitioners promise that they will invest in bringing broadband to (rural) areas, increase jobs and increase quality of service. In contrast, there is sizable information in the record to show that FairPoint may be limited by the terms of their agreement in its ability to deliver on its promises. If the seller is not committed to ubiquitous broadband deployment, then letting someone else with more commitment do the job makes sense. But if the buyer is shackled by the costs of the agreement, it becomes more difficult to see how the public interest is served. As a result of this particular transaction, FairPoint may be unable to meet its broadband promises, have less reliable service, employ fewer people over time and meet its other commitments due to its heavy debt load and historically high dividends." Pointing out that the public-service commission in the three affected states still have not made a final decision regarding this acquisition, Copps wrote, "The Commission was asked by a number of parties, including Members of Congress from these states, to wait for the state commissions to complete their work before acting. We should be doing that in order to benefit from their more granular analysis and their on-the-scene knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, I hope and expect that the states will continue independently in their consideration of this matter despite the FCC's action today." Added Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, "At the state level, red flags have been raised by the Maine Public Utilities Commission Hearing Examiner, the Maine Public Advocate, the Vermont Department of Public Service, the staff of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, and the New Hampshire Consumer Advocate. The Vermont Public Service Board did more than raise red flags -- it put up a red light in denying the transaction as proposed. These commenters raise serious issues that would have benefited from more attention than the casual dismissal we offer today." He continues, "Inexplicably, there are no special measures in this Order to address the concerns about broadband deployment, wholesale service or service quality for customers in these three states. The Order itself does not wrestle in any serious way with the ultimate question for consumers, as posed by the consumer commenters, of what level of service these new customers will be receiving and at what price. Instead, this Order takes at face value assertion after assertion without engaging in meaningful analysis. I might have been persuaded that, with the proper analysis and conditions, this merger could serve the public interest. Sadly, neither is offered in this Order." A more in-depth look at this development will be appearing soon in TelecomWeb news break's sister e-letter Telecom Policy Report ( http://www.telecomweb.com/news/tpr. )
|