ffejie writes "Verizon has announced that it will be spinning off rural assets to FairPoint Communications. These include all assets in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The deal will close sometime in 2007 and is worth $2.7 billion. 1.6 million phone lines, 234,000 DSL subscribers, and 600,000 long-distance customers will be moved to FairPoint in Verizon's effort to shed its low-margin lines in rural areas. The sale has been rumored since the summer at least. With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?"
With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?"
They get better service?
Big telcos like Verizon tend to focus on large population areas first, because that's where the money is. Which means that the major cities get more options and better service while Bob Newhart over in Middlebury, Vermont can forget about ever getting Fiber service. In fact, I'd guess that the sale of the rural lines in these areas are being done specifically so that Verizon doesn't have to deploy FiOS [wikipedia.org] as promised.
In comparison, a small company like Fairpoint is going to have to focus on the customers they've got. Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.
There's no customers to hurt. I live on a PAVED ROAD (laugh, but it's rare in the area mentioned) less than EIGHT MILES from Montpelier, Vermont. It's a fairly major route, and a several hundred people live on it between me and Montpelier. I've been on the waiting list for high-speed internet since 2001. I'm still stuck on dial-up (on the upside, the state does provide that for free to us). I don't know anyone, outside major population centers (8k+ people) who can get DSL or better.
It's too bad. I live in Bolton, in the Champlain Valley Telecom area. They've been great - I've had DSL for over five years, and I'm running about 3.5mbit download speeds right now. If I call tech support, I get someone in Hinesburg. I can't say enough good things about them. Having a local telecom company that owns their own equipment is key.
I live in Marshfield, VT, and I have been well-served by FairPoint for years. I've had a DSL connection for over a year, and the speed keeps increasing at no extra costs.
The few times decades ago I was serviced by NYNEX (now Verizon) and it sucked. You'll be much better off with FairPoint, in my experience.
Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.
I was actually going to respond to the question with "Co-Ops, of course" but with bought-and-paid-for state legislatures across the country doing everything they can to make internet co-ops illegal in favor of telcos et al, that may not be an option. I hope for their sakes that the people affected by this deal do get better service, but historically speaking it's a coin toss. The real quest
Vermont already has CoOps and municipal internet. Burlington Telecom [burlingtontelecom.net] provides FTTP over which they serve voice, television, and data.
Last time I checked what they were trying to outlaw was not co-ops (a co-op is just a business that's held by the employees, which you can't make illegal without screwing up a lot of other bogus legal constructs that corporations use to deflect blame from themselves, or funnel money around) but government-operated ISPs. Anyone can start a co-op any time, and if you really want to change the world, you should do just that.
If their service is like Verizon's in Ohio, they'll be better off with the smaller carrier.
A few years back I had to argue with them to get them to fix noise on my line. They repeatedly told me over and over that there was no noise on my line until the fifth time I called the person on the other end could hear it. This went on for two weeks. Turns out a rather costly piece of equipment was going belly up in their switching station one block away from my apartment. The technician stopped by and apologized
As a counterpoint, the central office that we get phone service from is operated by D&E. Most of the ones surrounding us are operated by Verizon. We pay $45 a month for 512Kbps down, 256 kbps up DSL, while you can get 768 Kbps down DSL from Verizon for $20/month. I suspect that it'll be quite a while until we get FTTP. One advantage of larger companies like Verizon is that they have enough capital to do these big projects, which smaller phone companies, like ours, can't match.
Well, as a Vermont resident, this wouldn't surprise me. Of course, plenty of the state is nothing but Bumfuckville where costs to deploy proper internet connections would be insane. My aunt, for example, in Braintree - absolute middle of nowhere with incredibly low population density and the only internet options being dial-up and supremely overpriced satellite. Neither cable nor DSL is an option for her, while both are a choice for me in Williston where we actually have people (and, more importantly, pe
So close. It would have been perfect if you'd written it as, "Hi. I'm Larry from L.D.&D. Telecom, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl.":P
With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?
Not necessarily. I used to live up in Maine, and while the big-name telco and cablecos wouldn't even dream about rolling out FIOS to most markets there, some local companies were. In particular, there was a local operation in Lewiston that was out, running fiber all over the place. I have no idea where they got their capital, but it was a local business with a huge office downtown, and a pretty rapid deployment plan.
I'm almost positive it was these guys: http://www.oxfordnetworks.com/
I used to live up in Maine, and while the big-name telco and cablecos wouldn't even dream about rolling out FIOS to most markets there, some local companies were.
Great. I still do. In the "other" Maine, even. Time Warner sells fibre connectivity up here, but it costs an arm and a leg. Do they count as "big-name" for you?
Let's face it; if you're not in a major market, then you aren't worth two squirts to a major national carrier. At least with a regional company, they're going to have some reason to pay
They're screwed. They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them. If they're lucky (for suitably large definitions of 'luck'), they'll be able to get high speed service from their local cable provider.
They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them.
And there was never going to be any FIOS for them with Verizon. At least with a regional company, customer service will probably be better (I mean, unless they come to your house and actually beat you with a stick, it can't possibly be worse), and they'll have a better chance of getting new technologies as soon as it's technically and economically feasible in the area.
I don't know anything about FairPoint, but when I went to a small 13,000 household telco my service improved greatly. Prices went up a bit, but only a few percent and my service has been great.
...what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint
Not sure, but do you know any "larger telcos" that do anything but s*** on their residential customers? My best experiences with phone and data services have been with "regional" providers; the only reason I gave up my last one was that I moved to an area where the only two choices were AT&T and Charter (lose lose).
This means they anticipate a Democratic-leaning FCC in the coming years. By creating structural seperation for the markets where they don't want to roll out FiOS, they insulate themselves from the impact of a ruling to the effect that they have to roll out service in an equitable manner.
Since it's far cheaper per customer to provide service to dense areas but existing laws are designed to equalize service costs to rural customers, the question is really about all sorts of legislative changes. For example, if current subsidies end, then the rural areas could become suddenly (more) unprofitable. It's just as you say, but there's more than one way revenue in rural areas is legislatively unstable.
Personally, I think rural areas shouldn't be treated any different legislatively than anyone else.
Wimax is perfect for rural areas and a smaller telco can much easier make deal with various suppliers for test cases. Intel would be a perfect choice since they are already spending billions on Wimax.
Nothing. Verizon wasn't rolling out shit. They keep advertising DSL, even though its barely available. "Its cheaper then cable" Great. It could be zero dollars for all I care, I can't get it, my parents can't get it, my wife's parents can't get it, my sister can't get it, etc, etc. I lived in the most populated area of Vermont up until last year, and I couldn't get DSL. I don't know this new company is, but they couldn't possibly do any crappier a job of rolling out DSL then Verizon was. And fiber? Yeah righ
I know a number of people with DSL in Chittenden County, including one in Fairfax... it's more a matter of how far you are from some hardware dohickey than how populated your area is.
And I could definitely have it in Burlington, but I use cable instead. I haven't used Verizon since I canceled my local phone service in favor of my cell, which is about 20% cheaper per month.
Sounds like the "early" days of DSL service here in Canada. DSL had a range of about 3km from the CO, provided that the CO was correctly outfitted. Most communities weren't close enough to an upgraded CO when DSL service was first offered, so cable got really popular for broadband. Most network-savvy people quickly realized that cable companies are teh sux0r when it comes to Internet service, so switched to DSL as soon as it was available in their area. However, unlike the United States, Canada has laws that
If anything, this could make it that much better. Verizon ignored those area because they have a much higer density (therefore more potential customers per mile) in urban/suburban areas. Now with those people under a more local telecom, the company doesn't have to focus on anything but those local customers. And it's not like there's no competition. Satellite broadband is there, even though it's probably expensive, and who knows what kind of wireless broadband might be available. (I don't live up there so I don't know.) So, the new company should be far more aware of customer service than Verizon ever will be.
It's rather presumptuous to assume that the customers will be let out to dry just because the big, bad Verizon is leaving.
I've had Fairpoint in the past, and I feel sorry for these people. Where I used to live, here is what they charge [fairpoint.com]. These people may not get it as bad, but Fairpoint and Value do not go together. $69 for 1.5/512. OUCH.
You know why they pay $69? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT COSTS!
It is a mistake to warp economics so that all customers pay the same price even though some customers cost far more to serve than others. If the telco company has to run and service two miles of cable to provide service to you but only has to run and service 100 feet of cable to provide service to me, you should pay more than I do.
Verizon announced that they are finally going to offer DSL to all customers south of Indianapolis in Indiana. We have no option for DSL, FIOS, cable (TV or internet) or anything like that. DSL will be a welcome change but I doubt if a smaller company would have the capital to handle the setup. There is a lot of open area here. People are spread apart and don't really live in communities or subdivisions.
FIOS isn't even on the radar. The nearest FIOS option is Louisville, KY, about 30mi southwest.
So explain this: people complain about Verizon in so many ways: big evil corporation, doesn't care about the customer, rapes you on unnecessary fees and services, crappy service, etc. Verizon gives up market share by selling their piece of the pie in a bunch of areas to a smaller company. So big bad evil company goes away, and now people complain that the little (well, smaller anyway) guy is back in town? WTF do you really want? Yes, yes I know, welcome to Slashdot....
It's really the only proposition that works economically for remote locations. I used to live in central NY - one day I got a 'free cable installation' coupon in the mailbox so I called the cable company. They sent out a cable guy who looked at my end of the line two miles from the nearest neighbor electrical service and well we got an example of the meaning of ROTFL. I've since moved away from that location and now live in the NYC metro exurb where I can get 30/5 cable internet. I'd bet the people who bough
Satellite is crap. The VSAT people give you like 3GB/mo. That's fucking worthless, I can't even use it for business two days a week with a three gigabyte cap. Skyblue has no capacity out here and hughes wants like $110/mo for their lowest level of service now, and I've heard from numerous people who have gotten capped on their service as well. Like it or not the satellites simply cannot handle a useful amount of traffic. It would be far more effective to just put up a bunch of autonomous wifi repeater blimp
Unions are fighting this one because it will mean a further decline in wages in the industry if all those workers go non-union. That's bad for everyone if the rich keep getting richer. See http://stop-the-sale.org/ [stop-the-sale.org] for their arguments.
With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?
FairPoint isn't a "small" telco, it's actually fairly big one, just not in the large Baby Bell category. The customers will get exactly the same service they have now - unfortunately. In my area, which is extremely rural, the company providing phone service has changed hands several times over the past decade. Each time, the sam
In Burlington, Vermont's largest city, they already have a municipal fiber optic network.
The City of Burlington, like many other small cities and towns around the USA, has decided to ensure that all of Burlington's citizens and business have the up-to-date telecommunication services they need by building a municipally owned 21st century fiber optic infrastructure.
Vermonters often prefer local smaller business, cooperatives, and the like, to the national chains and providers. They do an excellent job up there of doing things their own way. Having FairPoint instead of Verizon will hopefully mean a telco that will work more closely with local government to provide innovate services that reach everyone. The big telcos have fought against things like municpal networks in the past. I don't think they will be missed.
***With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?" ***
Rural customers in Vermont couldn't get DSL from Bell Atlantic. And they still can't now that the bills have a Verison logo on them. Oddly, they can get DSL from some of the smaller local providers -- notably Waitsfield Telecom which is pretty much the poster child for usable rural broadband for customers in its service area in the Central part of the state.
Unless the Vermont Public Service Commission suddenly grows some balls -- something they've never shown much sign of having -- I imagine that things will get worse, not better with this sale. The governor says that broadband is one of his priorities. But IMO he's a political hack -- mostly mouth. OTOH, occasionally I'm pleasantly suprised. Maybe Jim Douglas or the next governor or the one after that will take some meaningful action.
With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?
Our crooked semi-socialist government will do same thing for internet connectivity that was done for voice connectivity. Residents of rural America with cry and whinge about how it isn't fair that they don't get the same service everyone else gets, and demand that they get at the same price. Eventually one of their Congressmen will introduce a bill requiring phone companies to pool a portion of their profits and use it to supply broadband to needy people in rural areas. The phone companies will get their Congressmen to amend the bill to instead charge everyone in the country with internet access a monthly fee and that money will be used to provide broadband to the backward hicks who want to live in the middle of nowhere and still enjoy the comforts of civilization. And everyone in America will continue the slow grind towards our eventual slavery to the wants of others.
I think the rural areas should just shut the water off to the big cities for a week as a test case and renegotiate the "socialist" water you receive at highly subsidised rates. How would you superior advanced urbanites like to pay "what the free market will bear" for your tap water? Ten a gallon sound OK to you? Or do you have your own personal water well in the basement of your condo? Then the rural folks could afford some things better if we ended the urban socialist subsidy.. Oh, food? let's do the same w
THIS resident of "Rural America" would like you to know that Wyoming coal provides better than 30% of the electrical generation for the East Coast. Without the infrastructure necessary to support the mines and the people to work them how exactly would your precious city run? You're a typical city dweller. You look down your nose at any one who lives outside the city but fail to realize that without us rural people your city wouldn't be possible.
You can't feed yourselves, you can't provide your own water, you
This is why, sometimes monopolies are something not so bad, it depends on the country where you live.
Here in Japan NTT is a virtual monopoly for landlines, but I am in a semi-rural area and I have fiber-to-home.
In Mexico Telmex is also a virtual monopoly, the prices suck and the technology as well, but you can use DSL more less in all simu-rural areas.
Same policies for all the country. In general I hate monopolies but this is one of the few good points on them.
For those who know nothing about FairPoint Communications. Their strategy is to buy up markets that no one else wants to serve and operate them for as cheaply as possible. Quality of Service will not go up...it will go down in a huge way.
I work in one of their tech support call centers. We used to be their exclusive tech support for all of their subscribers, however their service was so bad it was costing us money since we have a standard monthly billing, we ended up telling to them to take a hike. One market had about 60% of their subscribers calling in every month. Every time it rained everyone lost sync on their modem.
That properties' tech support has been outsourced overseas.
The worst Fairpoint property my company still handles
has 976 subs. We plan for 390 of those calling in each month.
Our overall average for Fairpoint companies is about 25% of their customers calling in for internet support each month.
Verizon have been making a land-speed record (for them) getting FIOS across southern NH. They've been making a bee-line straight for my house for the last 6 or 8 months (Salem, Derry, Pelham, Hudson, Nashua, from what I understand) and now that they're almost at my door, it looks like they might stop?
I really hope existing customers don't lose their existing access, and I hope the timeframe for this is such that they might not immediately cancel all upgrades.
What happens? (Score:5, Informative)
They get better service?
Big telcos like Verizon tend to focus on large population areas first, because that's where the money is. Which means that the major cities get more options and better service while Bob Newhart over in Middlebury, Vermont can forget about ever getting Fiber service. In fact, I'd guess that the sale of the rural lines in these areas are being done specifically so that Verizon doesn't have to deploy FiOS [wikipedia.org] as promised.
In comparison, a small company like Fairpoint is going to have to focus on the customers they've got. Which means either making them happy, or losing the business to local Co-Ops setup to provide the missing services.
It's all highly ironic (Score:2)
For the last decade or so, small telcos have been bought up by the likes of Verizon. I know just a town over this had happened only last year.
Now, rather than being in the mentality of conglomeration, they're improving profit margins. Eh, it's all business dealings.
I agree with the parent though, this will not hurt, if not greatly benefit, the customers in those areas, despite not having FiOS "guaranteed."
Re: (Score:2)
I live on a PAVED ROAD (laugh, but it's rare in the area mentioned) less than EIGHT MILES from Montpelier, Vermont. It's a fairly major route, and a several hundred people live on it between me and Montpelier.
I've been on the waiting list for high-speed internet since 2001. I'm still stuck on dial-up (on the upside, the state does provide that for free to us). I don't know anyone, outside major population centers (8k+ people) who can get DSL or better.
And I can't see the sit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So will this new deal help? Who knows...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The few times decades ago I was serviced by NYNEX (now Verizon) and it sucked. You'll be much better off with FairPoint, in my experience.
Co-ops (Score:2)
I was actually going to respond to the question with "Co-Ops, of course" but with bought-and-paid-for state legislatures across the country doing everything they can to make internet co-ops illegal in favor of telcos et al, that may not be an option. I hope for their sakes that the people affected by this deal do get better service, but historically speaking it's a coin toss. The real quest
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So close. It would have been perfect if you'd written it as, "Hi. I'm Larry from L.D.&D. Telecom, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl."
Well, (Score:2)
Worse than Comcast? Are you kidding? (Score:2)
I used to live up in Maine, and while the big-name telco and cablecos wouldn't even dream about rolling out FIOS to most markets there, some local companies were. In particular, there was a local operation in Lewiston that was out, running fiber all over the place. I have no idea where they got their capital, but it was a local business with a huge office downtown, and a pretty rapid deployment plan.
I'm almost positive it was these guys: http://www.oxfordnetworks.com/
Let's face it; if you're
Re: (Score:2)
Great. I still do. In the "other" Maine, even. Time Warner sells fibre connectivity up here, but it costs an arm and a leg. Do they count as "big-name" for you?
what will happen to the consumers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there was never going to be any FIOS for them with Verizon. At least with a regional company, customer service will probably be better (I mean, unless they come to your house and actually beat you with a stick, it can't possibly be worse), and they'll have a better chance of getting new technologies as soon as it's technically and economically feasible in the area.
No worries. (Score:2)
Probibly be better service. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with regional telcos? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure, but do you know any "larger telcos" that do anything but s*** on their residential customers? My best experiences with phone and data services have been with "regional" providers; the only reason I gave up my last one was that I moved to an area where the only two choices were AT&T and Charter (lose lose).
Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally speaking (Score:2)
It's just as you say, but there's more than one way revenue in rural areas is legislatively unstable.
Personally, I think rural areas shouldn't be treated any different legislatively than anyone else.
Oh, lovely! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: FairPoint Station (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention you could be put on trial for humanity's crimes, by an omnipotent super-being.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wimax (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens? (Score:2)
And fiber? Yeah righ
Re: (Score:2)
And I could definitely have it in Burlington, but I use cable instead. I haven't used Verizon since I canceled my local phone service in favor of my cell, which is about 20% cheaper per month.
Re: (Score:2)
However, unlike the United States, Canada has laws that
Why is this assumed to be bad??? (Score:3, Informative)
It's rather presumptuous to assume that the customers will be let out to dry just because the big, bad Verizon is leaving.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a mistake to warp economics so that all customers pay the same price even though some customers cost far more to serve than others. If the telco company has to run and service two miles of cable to provide service to you but only has to run and service 100 feet of cable to provide service to me, you should pay more than I do.
Parent
Satellite's not all that great... (Score:2)
hope they leave the rest of rual america alone (Score:2)
FIOS isn't even on the radar. The nearest FIOS option is Louisville, KY, about 30mi southwest.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
Satellite (Score:2)
I've since moved away from that location and now live in the NYC metro exurb where I can get 30/5 cable internet. I'd bet the people who bough
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maine's Governor comments (Score:3, Funny)
Resistance to this idea (Score:4, Interesting)
What will happen? Nothing. (Score:2)
With Verizon aggressively rolling out high-speed FiOS (FTTP) in its service area, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint?
FairPoint isn't a "small" telco, it's actually fairly big one, just not in the large Baby Bell category. The customers will get exactly the same service they have now - unfortunately. In my area, which is extremely rural, the company providing phone service has changed hands several times over the past decade. Each time, the sam
burlington telecom, etc (Score:3, Interesting)
Vermonters often prefer local smaller business, cooperatives, and the like, to the national chains and providers. They do an excellent job up there of doing things their own way. Having FairPoint instead of Verizon will hopefully mean a telco that will work more closely with local government to provide innovate services that reach everyone. The big telcos have fought against things like municpal networks in the past. I don't think they will be missed.
We'll continue not to get broadband (Score:3, Insightful)
Rural customers in Vermont couldn't get DSL from Bell Atlantic. And they still can't now that the bills have a Verison logo on them. Oddly, they can get DSL from some of the smaller local providers -- notably Waitsfield Telecom which is pretty much the poster child for usable rural broadband for customers in its service area in the Central part of the state.
Unless the Vermont Public Service Commission suddenly grows some balls -- something they've never shown much sign of having -- I imagine that things will get worse, not better with this sale. The governor says that broadband is one of his priorities. But IMO he's a political hack -- mostly mouth. OTOH, occasionally I'm pleasantly suprised. Maybe Jim Douglas or the next governor or the one after that will take some meaningful action.
Everyone else will pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Our crooked semi-socialist government will do same thing for internet connectivity that was done for voice connectivity. Residents of rural America with cry and whinge about how it isn't fair that they don't get the same service everyone else gets, and demand that they get at the same price. Eventually one of their Congressmen will introduce a bill requiring phone companies to pool a portion of their profits and use it to supply broadband to needy people in rural areas. The phone companies will get their Congressmen to amend the bill to instead charge everyone in the country with internet access a monthly fee and that money will be used to provide broadband to the backward hicks who want to live in the middle of nowhere and still enjoy the comforts of civilization. And everyone in America will continue the slow grind towards our eventual slavery to the wants of others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"what the free market will bear" for your tap water? Ten a gallon sound OK to you? Or do you have your own personal water well in the basement of your condo? Then the rural folks could afford some things better if we ended the urban socialist subsidy.. Oh, food? let's do the same w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a typical city dweller. You look down your nose at any one who lives outside the city but fail to realize that without us rural people your city wouldn't be possible.
You can't feed yourselves, you can't provide your own water, you
Monopolies in other countries (Score:3, Insightful)
In Mexico Telmex is also a virtual monopoly, the prices suck and the technology as well, but you can use DSL more less in all simu-rural areas.
Same policies for all the country. In general I hate monopolies but this is one of the few good points on them.
Goodbye Service! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because most people know that the Amish mainly live in Pennsylvania and Upstate New York, not northern New England...
That said, Maine still has a few Shakers [wikipedia.org] left. But everyone else would really like to get DSL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really hope existing customers don't lose their existing access, and I hope the timeframe for this is such that they might not immediately cancel all upgrades.
Since they're going to be the majority sta