Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rural America Is Being Left off the Information Superhighway

By Steve Early, The Nation. Posted May 19, 2007.


Verizon's proposed plan of a $2.7 billion transfer of local access lines to FairPoint Communications -- a small, largely nonunion North Carolina firm -- is part of a nationwide trend toward rural telecom redlining.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steve Early

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Northern New England is just emerging from its annual "mud season" -- long the bane of back-road drivers throughout the region. Nevertheless, residents of Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are now worried about getting stuck in a different way. That's because their local phone company, the corporate giant Verizon, wants to ditch them as customers.

Labor and consumer activists, joined by some public officials, are organizing against this move, in a high-stakes regulatory and political battle with consequences for the future of telecommunications in all of rural America.

Verizon's proposed $2.7 billion transfer of local access lines to FairPoint Communications -- a small, largely nonunion North Carolina firm -- is part of a nationwide trend toward rural telecom redlining. Everywhere it can, Verizon is trying to abandon "low-value" landline customers and is focusing instead on building its wireless customer base and investing billions of dollars in a new "FIOS" service. FIOS provides voice, video and high-speed broadband connections on a single fiber-optic cable network, now being extended directly to homes and businesses in big cities and affluent suburbs.

While "high-value" customers in these areas move into the fast lane of the information superhighway, the contested sale to FairPoint would leave northern New Englanders far behind. Residential customers -- not to mention schools, businesses, hospitals and emergency responders -- will still be dependent on "dirt-road dial-up" for their Internet access or, at best, will move into the slow lane of digital subscriber line (DSL) service, a technology that some regard as outdated and prohibitively expensive for rural economic development.

"FairPoint, a highly leveraged company, will have great difficulty meeting the big dividend and debt commitments it has made as part of this purchase, while simultaneously investing enough to maintain current facilities, improve service quality and expand broadband availability," argues Kenneth Peres, research economist for the Communications Workers of America (CWA). As Peres points out in the union's April 27 petition to the Federal Communications Commission opposing the sale, "FairPoint plans to expend less capital on network infrastructure than was previously spent by Verizon" -- a $120 billion company with $6.2 billion in net income last year and thus far deeper pockets.

So if "small is not beautiful" in this case -- and bigger would be better (if state and federal policy-makers compelled Verizon to continue as the incumbent carrier and make its broadband build-out more universal) -- how did little FairPoint, worth only $630 million, become Verizon's buyer of choice?

According to union consultant Randy Barber, the answer to that question lies in an obscure IRS loophole called a Reverse Morris Trust. As Barber explains, "a parent corporation can spin off a subsidiary into an unrelated company, tax free, if the shareholders of the parent end up controlling more than 50 percent of the voting rights and economic value of the merged company." So the Verizon-FairPoint deal has been structured as just this type of "tax-driven transaction"; if approved, it will yield $600 million in tax savings for Verizon.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: internet, rural, broadband, telecom

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
There are always options
Posted by: packrat on May 19, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't pretend to understand the financial aspects of this divestiture, or sale, or whatever the heck it is. I can't envision making 600 Million a year, let alone a TAX SAVINGS of 600 million! Not in my league. What I do understand is rural communications needs, and yes, there are options. Without going into tech details, I will just throw out a couple; wireless and satellite. I have used both in remote rural areas. We live a mile away from a town of 1000, and we have at least three high-speed choices, including DSL. As long as you have options, you have weapons in the battle against the corporations. Block them from selling "you" to a smaller, less capable company if you can, and good luck with it. If customers are abandoning the company, why would another company want to purchase it? I have no problem with Fairpoint, in fact they recently purchased our local telco. I don't have landline, so I can't speak to their quality. And Verizon provided me good cellular service for years (not here though).Good luck with your battles. Use the strength of having options!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hillary Posted by: gellero
Rural America voted for these sellouts and here come the consequences as the article pointed out.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 19, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the progressives start to unite a little more and get beyond TV and the NET, and put progressive ideology before party first, then only will Rural America be better informed, vote progressive, and not suffer the consequences. Until then, they'll be duped into voting for politicians that oh say give a hardline against "abortion" before the election but after the election push deregulation against all who voted for them !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WARNING! This is an alarmist, sky-is-falling article.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 19, 2007 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of the sky, farmers everywhere in the United States can get wireless SATELLITE access to the Web for $59/month through HughesNet.

Next time, Nation, do your homework.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Development???
Posted by: gellero on May 19, 2007 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A high speed line is necessary for 'rural economic development'??? Why?? To buy things faster?? To sell your pitchfork faster on eBay?? Of maybe you think the rest of us - via our taxes - should subsidize this. Count me out....my heart bleeds for their difficulties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Development??? Posted by: packrat
We live in a town of 5 thousand.
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 19, 2007 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
High-speed broadband IS available - for several times the cost of dialup. Both of us being disabled and on SSDI, we can't afford it. We can't watch streaming video or download any sort of video for that metter. About 3 minutes of video takes 7 or more hours, and in that time, there's almost always a timeout or some other problem; meanwhile, the line's tied up. Yes, there are call manager apps, but ours was bought out by Yahoo which decided that serving this dinky area wasn't cost effective, so when we're on the Internet, we can't get calls, or even be told we HAVE an incoming call.

Most of Europe considers Internet a necessity these days. With deregulation here, that will never happen - corporations are too busy screwing each other and the customers trying for the last possible penny to do anything reasonable like that.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People deserve what they vote for...
Posted by: sherifffruitfly on May 19, 2007 11:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let the bigots stew in their idiocy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

only the beginning
Posted by: Lector on May 20, 2007 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not surprising news. There is another parallel Internet that was created over 10 years ago which only a select few are using with much faster connections (Internet 2) and this red-lining of services to the rural low paying customer areas is only the beginning. I think that what we’re using here will be eventually phased out or made redundant or useless for obtaining information unless you pay for it. The system beyond Internet 2 will have more benefits (we’ll have to buy new software) but they fail to mention this system will fit perfectly into the high security police state and will probably track our every keystroke and will require a background check before we’re allowed access.

Robert Lightfoot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about closing the IRS loophole
Posted by: chaoslegs on May 20, 2007 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that is causing Verizon to sell to this particular company.

I think using the regulatory is a good effort, but getting to the root cause would be another good step.

For those folks that are less than supportive of rural folks, I imagine they were against rural electricification last century. And I suppose they have also been against any law that restricts a government from getting into the game when corporations refuse to. Corporations have refused to bring broadband to some small towns, but then cry foul and want a state law banning local governements from providing the service.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]