how-to block ads
|
jasg
join:2008-12-13
Seattle, WA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Washington State and Frontier news
The staff of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission recommends state regulators reject the proposed sale of Verizon's landline residential and commercial telephone business in Washington to Frontier Communications.
»seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b···n03.html
Let the lobbying begin.... | |
pdxsam
join:2007-03-02
Portland, OR
| I"m happy to see dissenting voices in this process. The fact that California, Nevada and South Carolina have already rubber stamped the approval, doesn't bode well moving forward.
I would love for both Washington and Oregon to say NO.
As you just said, once the lobbying begins it's all over. | |
fishacura
join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA | reply to jasg
Funny, I thought this was America lol | |
pdxsam
join:2007-03-02
Portland, OR
| said by fishacura  :Funny, I thought this was America lol It is  It's all about the lobbyists | |
rifleman69
join:2006-04-12
Beaverton, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jasg
said by jasg :The staff of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission recommends state regulators reject the proposed sale of Verizon's landline residential and commercial telephone business in Washington to Frontier Communications.» seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b···n03.htmlLet the lobbying begin.... Works for me, if it turns out that VZ eventually does sell off us to Frontier, it's not just a simple handshake and sign your name acquisition. The Utility commissions are doing their job, can't ask for any more. | |
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jasg
I'm going to throw a dissenting voice in here. Right off though let me be clear - I don't want Verizon to sell these territories... I most definitely wouldn't want to be in an area that's set to be sold off like this... and I agree that prior spin-offs have been less than good. And I agree that the WUC is just doing their jobs. But at the same time, I have to ask - on what basis are they making this claim? Meaning, what's the justification for having regulators DENY the sale? Have they demonstrated that Frontier CAN'T handle the work? If so, then I agree with their recommendation. But you can't extrapolate from Fairpoint, e.g., what will happen here. Fairpoint is a totally different company. If they want to convince anyone that this deal shouldn't happen, just pointing to how other companies didn't live up to the billing isn't going to cut it - nor should it. If I were president of Fairpoint, I shouldn't have to live up to the standard (or lack thereof) set forward by other companies who have failed in this regard.
However, I do think that there should be a lessons learned in the other deals. Meaning that they really need to look at where things went wrong in assessing the risk of the other spin offs. Why didn't the regulators find the potential land-mines with the Fairpoint deal, e.g.? I agree that such a determination should be made, and findings could/should be employed in future similar dealings. But to just make the statement 'see what happened over there in New England? That's why this deal shouldn't go through' is just not enough. | |
Onedollar
join:2001-08-27
Pomona, CA | JPL always the devil's advocate...
lol, I agree with you on your points though  | |
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| What can I say... I got tired of the Epix thread . In seriousness, though - I'm all for consumer protection. I think that's a good thing. But sometimes I think these organizations do the exact opposite... they actually hurt consumers in the effort to protect them (I still have a hard time figuring out why cable companies should be forced to get video franchises, e.g. - I don't see how you protect customers by limiting their choices). Or at the very least there are unintended consequences in these types of things.
If they have a legitimate beef, then fine... I'm all for them pressing it. But to say that the deal shouldn't go through but they don't provide any reason behind it... well (and not to overstate it) but that's tyranny. A very very soft form of it, to be sure, but still it's a government entity exerting control over a private entity (or 2, in this case) for no valid reason. We wouldn't stand for it in a court of law when prosecuting someone. | |
darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to JPL
First, the burden of proof is on Frontier that they can get the job done. I can tell you from what I've seen of their publicly filed cable franchise transfer request and followup information that I have my doubts that they can deliver the video services. If their plans / documentation for telco services are in similar poor shape then I'm not the least bit surprised by this outcome.
Secondly, previous post-sales failures aren't the only reasons cited, the article also says:
The WUTC staff said it doubts Frontier would be able to raise capital for wireline improvements because the company's credit rating is lower than Verizon's. The staff also said it's concerned Frontier "will not succeed in generating synergies from this transaction because the phone company will face higher per unit costs in the Washington operations than Verizon faces today." Two very clear, financially-based reasons. | |
jasg
join:2008-12-13
Seattle, WA
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to jasg
If anyone in WA wants to comment directly, here is the information from the commission press release:
The commission has received 93 public comments with five in favor, 40 undecided and 48 opposed to the proposed sale. Customers who would like to comment on the case are encouraged to do so by mailing their correspondence to: P.O. Box 47250 Olympia, Wash., 98504; e-mail comments to comments@utc.wa.gov or call toll-free 1-888-333-9882. The commission’s deadline for accepting public comments is Jan. 11, 2010.
The full press release is here:
»www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/E···000077CE | |
pugetsounder
@verizon.net
| reply to jasg
What could be seen as "good news" on this website because of such overwhelming anti-union sentiment here, but is bad news for people that don't want the sale to go through - is down in Oregon, the state has barred the union from intervening in the sale.
one good thing is that if washington does put up a fuss, it will cause problems for oregon, because their operations are so intertwined (Verizon Northwest). however, california is also part of VZ Northwest, and they were recently approved. Of course, there is no fios in california, so maybe it bodes differently for OR and WA. | |
More Fiber
Premium,MVM
join:2005-09-26
West Chester, PA
·Bay Area Internet ..
| said by pugetsounder :
Of course, there is no fios in california, so maybe it bodes differently for OR and WA.
BS. VHO3 is in California.
From a 2007 news release:
quote:
The company currently offers FiOS TV service in parts of ten states: California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.
From another press release:
quote:
Verizon's state-issued franchise covers all or portions of the following communities:
Artesia, Bellflower, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Beach, Indian Wells, Indio, Industry, La Quinta, La Verne, Lakewood, Long Beach, Montclair, Moreno Valley, Norwalk, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Palos Verdes Estates, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Dimas, San Jacinto, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Seal Beach, Signal Hill, Stanton, Torrance, Upland, Victorville, Walnut, Westminster, Yucaipa
| |
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA |
IIRC, they're only selling a few COs in CA, near the NV border. | |
darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to pugetsounder
said by pugetsounder :
What could be seen as "good news" on this website because of such overwhelming anti-union sentiment here, but is bad news for people that don't want the sale to go through - is down in Oregon, the state has barred the union from intervening in the sale.
I'm not particularly pro- or anti-union (even though I belong to one because of my job). For better or worse, it would appear from what I've read at the Oregon PUC site, the union brought it on themselves (being barred from intervening). They were told exactly what the limits were of their participation and they overstepped those boundaries.
Interested folks can poke around here »apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/do···ID=15601 and decide for themselves (See specifically Order No: 09-409. | |
mystryfiostk
join:2008-07-17
00000
| reply to More Fiber
said by More Fiber :said by pugetsounder :
Of course, there is no fios in california, so maybe it bodes differently for OR and WA.
BS. VHO3 is in California. From a 2007 news release: quote:
The company currently offers FiOS TV service in parts of ten states: California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.
From another press release: quote:
Verizon's state-issued franchise covers all or portions of the following communities:
Artesia, Bellflower, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Beach, Indian Wells, Indio, Industry, La Quinta, La Verne, Lakewood, Long Beach, Montclair, Moreno Valley, Norwalk, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Palos Verdes Estates, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Dimas, San Jacinto, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Seal Beach, Signal Hill, Stanton, Torrance, Upland, Victorville, Walnut, Westminster, Yucaipa
It's not BS. Maybe he should have clarified, but most people who are following this transaction knows that Verizon Northwest is wholly going to Frontier.
Verizon Northwest is Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Northern California.
But then again, from PA it's all "out west" to you, right | |
pugetsounder
@verizon.net
| reply to darcilicious
said by darcilicious :said by pugetsounder :
What could be seen as "good news" on this website because of such overwhelming anti-union sentiment here, but is bad news for people that don't want the sale to go through - is down in Oregon, the state has barred the union from intervening in the sale.
I'm not particularly pro- or anti-union (even though I belong to one because of my job). For better or worse, it would appear from what I've read at the Oregon PUC site, the union brought it on themselves (being barred from intervening). They were told exactly what the limits were of their participation and they overstepped those boundaries. Interested folks can poke around here » apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/do···ID=15601 and decide for themselves (See specifically Order No: 09-409. For what its worth, the union's position on why:
The Oregon PUC stated that our attorney, Scott Rubin used confidential information from Verizon when he prepared a filing before the Pennsylvania Commission. No one has alleged that he disclosed any confidential information to anyone outside of the case in Oregon; only that he "used" it when preparing a filing in another state. In addition, Scott Rubin stated that in his opinion the information used was not even confidential because it was taken directly from filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but the page in Verizon's document was marked confidential. The Oregon PUC had reluctantly allowed IBEW 89 to intervene in the case, and it appears that they used this minor infraction (if it was even that) as an excuse to remove us from the case. | |
rifleman69
join:2006-04-12
Beaverton, OR
·Verizon FIOS
| Yep, the stuff being sold off in California I do believe is actually not FiOS territory, just little pockets of communities that happen to have Verizon service (and probably DSL or similar). Definitely nothing compared to the Seattle and Portland suburbs. | |
kustomjs
join:2006-12-12
Coldwater, OH | reply to jasg
well I am hoping ohio will say no | |
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to pugetsounder
said by pugetsounder :
For what its worth, the union's position on why: ...
I have no axe to grind either way. But one thing I *do* know is that law is a structure of rules and language that spell out clearly what you can and cannot do. Skill is required in interpreting that language, and that's what lawyers get paid to do.
Counsel for IBEW clearly stepped over the bounds set by Oregon PUC, and they're getting called on it. Whether it happened by oversight or other is not material, especially since it was laid out at the beginning that IBEW's participation was granted with reservations. Why the hesitation? Because they used confidential information improperly in a previous case before the PUC.
ALJ said "watch it", IBEW counsel tried to squeak around a strict interpretation and got caught. The only consolation is that the info presented to Pennsylvania is still admissible (and does not reflect favorably on Verizon).
Hmmm. Comcast is also party to the proceedings. Interesting.
At least that's how I read it. | |
darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| said by birdfeedr :Hmmm. Comcast is also party to the proceedings. Interesting. Just about every telecommunications/internet related company in the area is (e.g. Level3) as they all have a vested interest in the local peering points / infrastructure (at least as far as I can tell)
BTW, I agree completely with your statements/analysis above. If the union/attorneys knew that the PUC was reluctant allow IBEW's participation, all the more reason for the union/attorneys to step v e r y c a r e f u l l y. | |
-
|
