Summary
1. The PUCs should take the bulk of the blame for FairPoint’s problems. 2. However, it should not be “for signing off on the acquisition in the first place.” 3. While probably a little too small, FairPoint appeared to have a solid track record as an ILEC.
Analysis
As just about in all cases, the PUCs are to blame because they did not get out of the way. They came up with every burdensome requirement possible. It seems as if some people at the commissions wanted to rig the transition process for failure.
The consulting company, while seeming to be in the back pockets of the regulators, especially in terms of its recent report, probably did a competent job in terms of oversight. In such an unparalleled changeover, nobody at Verizon, FairPoint or the consulting firm could have known what would happen. Of course, the consultants are convenient scapegoats for the PUCs. And then the consultants blame the independent telco.
Despite any amount of planning, dealing with live traffic is always fraught with surprises. Certainly, “Capgemini, the company that designed FairPoint's computer system,” should probably be looked upon as the hero in this situation because it was such an enormous accomplishment.
It says volumes that the only party that has taken full responsibility is FairPoint.
Perhaps the” [l]ocal citizens and newspapers in New Hampshire” should start to look forward. They will have a much-improved network and there really is no benefit to dwelling on something that is not likely to ever happen again in their part of the country.
