Summary
1. It is about time that there is a press article that gives more of FairPoint Communications’ perspective. 2. One does get at least somewhat of a sense of the colossal job being pulled off. 3. As the article points out, FairPoint is eliminating 90% of the computing systems used by Verizon.
Analysis
FairPoint’s operating costs should be substantially lower than Verizon in northern New England. This will give the telco greater flexibility in making more investments in the network.
In terms of the formerly busy call centers, “FairPoint has reduced [the] number [of calls] to just above normal. It is apparently “overall, ahead of schedule” in the four major areas of service promises to the PUCs.
The current silence from the PUCs, consumer advocates, and so-called objective consultants is deafening. They will no doubt pounce on any hiccups.
There will certainly be many times to be critical of FairPoint after it resolves these current problems. And we will strive to be at the front of the line in making any deserved, negative comments of any company as indicative of our track record. There are no sacred cows. But FairPoint’s overall performance in making a transition from a neglected infrastructure has been nothing short of exceptional.
Despite all of the emphasis on the network, the carrier’s biggest challenge will be in terms of competition. And that means that the subscribers will benefit from FairPoint remaining on its toes.
Somebody from Portland, ME commenting on the article summarizes the whole situation at FairPoint very well. He says FairPoint is “on the rise as things get fixed, residential and business customers get high speed internet that Verizon stopped expanding. It's amazing how much people enjoy bashing a company that has hired that many people and spent that much money locally when you've got economic times like these....”
One last comment, we have received negative reports from another individual regarding FairPoint. However, when given the opportunity to provide us details and to have hi point of view published, he refused. Obviously his arguments were either unsubstantiated or nonexistent.
