TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

State puts FairPoint on notice



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: July 15, 2009

MONTPELIER – Vermont officials asked state regulators Tuesday to investigate FairPoint Communications to determine if the state's main phone company should be allowed to continue operating in the state.

The Vermont Public Service Department asked state regulators to investigate the troubled telecommunications company, specifically why its certificate of public good – essentially its authority to operate in the state – should not be taken away.

FairPoint has been plagued with operational, billing and service problems throughout 2009 after the North Carolina company bought Verizon's landline and Internet operations in Vermont, New Hampshire and western Massachusetts. It could file for bankruptcy protection before the end of the year.

Tamera Pariseau, the coordinator of consumer affairs for the department, told the quasi-judicial Vermont Public Service Board on Tuesday that without substantial changes to FairPoint's operations, "We do not believe it is in the state's best interest for this company to continue operating in Vermont."

FairPoint officials said the department's request was unnecessary. Jeff Allen, the executive vice-president of external affairs, told reporters that the company knows there is still a lot of work to do, but stressed that there have been improvements in service in recent months.

"With or without this petition from the department, our actions would be identical," Allen said. "Our plan is to succeed in building a company that is better than its competitors. Our focus right now is on getting there."

The last straw for the Public Service Department, which has received hundreds of complaints about FairPoint every month, appears to be the company's failure to meet key goals by the end of June that they outlined in a stabilization plan earlier this year.

FairPoint filed that plan, which outlined a strategy to return to "business as usual" by June 30, with regulators at the end of March. The company was unable to reach all those goals and a new report by Liberty Consulting Group, a firm advising all three states on FairPoint, states that "the onus is on FairPoint to explain how and when it will ultimately resolve the remaining issues …"

The department's filing this week states that absent a detailed plan from the company, "it may not be in the best interest of Vermont that FairPoint continue to be allowed to operate a business in Vermont."

Robert Stright, the co-founder of Liberty Consulting, told the Public Service Board on Tuesday that nearly all of FairPoint's problems stem from the transfer from Verizon's computer systems to their own at the end of January.

Stright said all the tests run by Liberty Consulting showed that this transfer would be successful and he is baffled as to why there were so many problems. When Liberty Consulting began a preliminary investigation into why the results were so different, Stright said FairPoint asked them to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

"It worked in testing," he said. "We saw it work in testing. When the cutover happened, what we saw working with our own eyes, suddenly didn't work."

During Tuesday's Public Service Board hearing, which was scheduled before the department requested the investigation, two competing pictures of FairPoint's readiness emerged.

Company officials acknowledged problems, but stressed that there have been improvements, such as reducing the wait time when customers are put on hold. But state officials even doubted some of those improvements were made.

"People continue to receive the wrong bills for months, but FairPoint does not count that as a billing error," said Pariseau.

She added that "frustration is unbelievably high" in the department for officials dealing with FairPoint complaints. And she said the department has "lost the confidence with the public" for its ability to work out problems between the company and customers.

Allen defended the company's actions, saying it has met monthly with state officials.

"We've been as transparent as possible," he said. "I think, at the end of the day, we'll find that FairPoint is delivering the service."

After Tuesday's filing, department officials said they hope it doesn't come to a point where FairPoint's authority to operate is revoked. Department spokesperson Steve Wark said requesting an investigation will lead to more "fact-finding" on FairPoint's financial condition and its plans.

If FairPoint is told to leave the state, customers will not be left without telephone or Internet service. Wark said the state would ensure that there first was a "reasonable alternative" in place.

"We hope this is the encouragement for the company to get back on track," Wark said.



Contact Daniel Barlow at Daniel.Barlow@timesargus.com.



Chart:

Total number of new complaints about FairPoint to the Public Service Department:

March: 557

April: 592

May: 328

June: 306

July (through the 10th): 129







READER COMMENTS


State has no power to put any business on notice.

Fairpoint sells services to the people in a private contract.

Their option is to go to bankruptcy court, a federal court for reorganization or ...

All corporations including fairpoint must be converted to full partnerships to put what is now the workforce on equal levels with the corporate leaders. Without a workforce the corporate leaders would not have a business.

...Vested with the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, eith in perpetuity or for a limited term of years AND OF ACTING AS A UNIT OR SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN MATTERS RELATING TO THE COMMON PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION

A franchise possessed by one or more individuals, who subsist as a BODY POLITIC, under a special denomination, and AND ARE VESTED WITH THE POLICY OF THE LAW WITH THE CAPACITY OF PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND OF ACTING IN SERVAL RESPECTS, HOWEVER NUMEROUR THE ASSOCIATION MAY BE, AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

a CORPORATION is a collection of natural persons, joined together by their voluntary action or by legal compulsion by or under the uathority of an act of the legislature. consisting of eith a special charter or of a general permissive statute, to accomplish some purpose,pecuniary, ideal or governmental, authorized by the charter or governing statue.

The statement tha a "corporation" is an artificial peron or entity, apart form its members, is merely a description, in figurative language, of a corporation viewed as a collective body.

In reading the above extracted from Blacks Law Dictionary, I can see no authority or comment that indicates a corporation can be acting or looked upon as anything but a single individual.
-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 7:21 am EST

report this comment


I don't care who may or may not be most responsible for this mess, I just service installed when I order it, I want a correct bill, and I want to be able to reach someone at FairPoint without waiting on hold for an hour. If that is the end result of what the state is doing, then great. If this is just another delay tactic and we're no better off in six months than we are now, then someone needs to be held accountable - either the CEO of FairPoint and all upper managers should be fired or the Governor should be impeached or both!
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 3:35 pm EST

report this comment


"...but it was the State's responsibility to review the information and make a wise choice on who could purchase. They did not do that..."

I agree with that.

Fining Fairpoint will not provide better services.
The biggest problem is:
Can they make the billing software work?

As far as I'm concerned I like to acknowledge all the good work the "ground troops" are performing.

DSL service is expanding. Not to me though~

The real question is:
Can the landline business make a profit or does it need subsidies to survive?

.
-- Posted by A None on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:16 pm EST

report this comment


A None - I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I agree that Verizon did everything they could to anger the State but it was the State's responsibility to review the information and make a wise choice on who could purchase. They did not do that - all these problems where pointed out to them and per the Radio and press releases that Mr. O'Brian gave less than 2 years ago, he stated at least they could fine Fairpoint if they failed to produce.


Verizon - made out in every way. The citizens of our State and the employees of the original company did not.

Regarding your questions on who will supply phone service appears Mr. Wark & the Public Service Department might be the responsible parties.
-- Posted by Maryann Williams on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 4:00 pm EST

report this comment


"I would suggest strongly that is not Fairpoint who has failed the state but the State who has failed its citizens."

Well,
to a certain degree I agree.
But what choice did the state have?
To keep Verizon who wanted to get out of the landline business or go for a new company that wanted the landline business?

The question is:
Is the landline business profitable?

Verizon decided it is not, the future is in wireless.

So, Verizon did everything to be disliked.
Like not maintaining or rather upgrading their physical infrastructure.

Then Verizon found a buyer.

Fairpoint.
'
I would like to see a business plan that could show that the landline business can be viable.

The big problem for people that only have access to a landline is that they need it to be working.

The state is now considering to decertify Fairpoint.

Then what?
Will my phone service still work?

.
-- Posted by A None on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment


The TA reporters are a joke. Mr. Barlow, I think we all know they purchased Verizon's landline business in Vermont, New Hampshire, AND MAINE. Not Western Massachusetts. Maybe we shouldn't believe anything in this story if such a basic fact is so horribly incorrect.
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 12:34 pm EST

report this comment


I agree, it's rather like trying to close the barn door now that all the horses are long, long gone.

The State approved this mess in the first place. It's laughable that they're now trying to hold FairPoint accountable by threatening to take away the very license that they granted. Who will take over Vermont's phone service if FairPoint loses their license to operate? Who on earth would want to?
-- Posted by VTAce on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:38 am EST

report this comment


This would be the same department that many people went to and begged them to "STOP THE SALE". The head of department Dave O'Brian lobbied heavily for Fairpoint giving all the reasons they would succeed where Verizon failed. Refusing to listen to employees of Verizon.

So Dave now that my husband and the other employees will be out of a job. Will you pay our mortgagees, bills and put food in our kids mouths?

I would suggest strongly that is not Fairpoint who has failed the state but the State who has failed its citizens. Maybe Mr. O'brian's performance should be reviewed too
-- Posted by Maryann Williams on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 9:08 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout