[OT] Verizon/FairPoint sale (was: Comcast!?!?)

[Ben Scott]

On Nov 12, 2007 3:43 PM, Bill McGonigle <bill at bfccomputing.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the unions are trying to ensure that the status quo is
> maintained ...

  Yah.  <SPECULATION> I suspect they're mostly concerned about their
jobs, and I don't blame them.  Verizon is a nice company to work
*for*, by most accounts.  They can afford to do that, since they don't
have to care much about being competitive.  I would expect FairPoint
will be cutting back on both local staff and benefits. </SPECULATION>

  I saw the road-side signs and went looking.  I eventually wound up
at http://www.verizonvsfairpoint.com/ , which I gather is run by some
VZ IBEW guy.  I posted a reasonable message in their discussion form a
while back, and I got some reasonable answers.  (All message traffic
was lost some time back in a database crash, so it's not there now.)
If anyone wants to hear "their" POV, I'd suggest going there.

  Their biggest theme seemed to be that FTTP is the wave of the
future.  Which is nice, I guess, except that VZ has explicitly stated
they don't want to be responsible for the long-term investment needed
to deploy and make a profit on FTTP in rural areas.  They didn't
respond to  that aspect.  They also did not respond to my point that
Verizon's FTTP implementation ("FiOS") sacrifices the robustness of
the copper plant they're justifiably proud of.  (ONT batteries only
last a few hours.)

  An interesting tidbit: They claim NH has 65% DSL coverage, but only
15% subscribership.  Apparently, given the choice, people are more
often going with HFC (hybrid fiber/coax, like Comcast), despite it's
higher cost.  They theorize that people are going with HFC because
it's faster and can do more.  (They ignore the customer service issue,
but frankly, I've dealt with Comcast and they're no great shakes
either.)  I suspect they have a point there.  But I suspect DSL
coverage and HFC coverage are largely mutually inclusive.  It's the
45% who don't have either that are pissed.  So I don't see VZ staying
or going as relevant to that.  (Though I didn't get around to raising
this point.)

  The one point they make that made some sense to me is this: "When
they [FairPoint] take over from Verizon, they'll have exactly the same
incentives as Verizon does".  In other words, if rural areas are
financially unattractive, selling to FairPoint won't help that.
Still, that assumes all things are equal, and I don't think they are.
VZ and FP likely have different ideas about what an acceptable profit
margin and time-to-ROI are.  And FP, not having dense markets to go
after, will likely find rural markets more attractive.  Adding more
small potatoes still means more total potatoes.

  Myself, my opinion largely boils down to: "Well, Verizon is pretty
much doing nothing for us.  How much worse could FairPoint be?"
Unfortunately, the answer to that last question is very hard (if not
impossible) to determine.

  I'm curious what others think about this.  While somewhat OT for
this list (ignoring the lack of a formally defined topic for this
list), I suspect it's something many of us have at least a minor
interest in, and maybe have more insight.

-- Ben