STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
Docket No. 7270
Joint Petition of Verizon New England, Inc.
d/b/a Verizon Vermont, Certain Affiliates
Thereof, and FairPoint Communications, Inc.
for approval of an asset transfer, acquisition
of control by merger and associated transactions
)
)
)
)
)
PREFILED SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
CHRISTOPHER J. CAMPBELL
ON BEHALF OF THE
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
August 10, 2007
Summary:
Mr. Campbell provides the Department’s summary recommendation in this
docket, and addresses issues of broadband, capital investment, alternative
regulation and other Vermont regulatory obligations, and emergency services.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 1 of 42
1
Prefiled Surrebuttal Testimony
2
of
3
Christopher J. Campbell
4
Table of Contents
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Introduction and Overall Assessment ................................................................................. 1
Public Good/Public Benefits ............................................................................................... 6
FairPoint’s Broadband Plan .............................................................................................. 10
A Consistent Coverage Broadband Plan ........................................................................... 23
Capital Investment / Efficiencies / Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions .............. 30
Alternative Regulation and General Regulatory Issues .................................................... 34
Availability of Emergency Services ................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 41
15
Introduction and Overall Assessment
16
Q.
Please state your name and occupation.
17
A.
My name is Christopher J. Campbell. My business address is 112 State Street,
18
Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT 05620. I am the Director for Telecommunications
19
for the Vermont Department of Public Service.
20
Q.
21
Are you the same Christopher Campbell who has testified previously in this
case?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony at this time?
24
A.
My testimony will provide the overarching recommendation of the
25
Department in this case. I will provide an assessment of FairPoint’s
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 2 of 42
1
broadband plan and describe an alternative to this plan. I will provide rebuttal
2
of and responses to testimony provided by FairPoint witnesses on a number of
3
specific issues, including capital investment, the alternative regulation plan
4
and elements of Verizon’s and FairPoint’s other current regulatory obligations
5
in Vermont, and readiness of FairPoint to respond to a natural disaster or other
6
widespread emergency.
7
Q.
Does the Department believe that the Joint Petitioners have sufficiently
8
demonstrated that the proposed transaction meets the standard used by the
9
Board to determine if such a transaction would promote the public good?
10
A.
No. At a general level, in order to approve this transaction, the Board must
11
determine that, for the public, the benefits of this proposal are greater than its
12
drawbacks. This transaction has potentially a large downside for Vermont and
13
its consumers. I will summarize some of the most important the concerns
14
expressed by the Department’s witnesses. The transaction involves a massive
15
and, according to FairPoint, one-way, conversion of its support systems. A
16
failure to successfully convert could cause significant disruption for
17
consumers and the other telecommunications companies that rely on
18
Verizon’s network, and FairPoint has had issues with prior system
19
conversions in Northern New England, specifically related to its billing
20
system. While FairPoint states an intention to improve service quality and fix
21
problems in this area that Verizon has had, it has had a mixed track record
22
itself with regards to service quality and consumer complaints. It would be
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 3 of 42
1
taking over a wholesale operation, a line of business in which it is not
2
experienced, and a failure to perform could have serious adverse
3
consequences on the competitive landscape in Vermont. Finally, while the
4
Department’s concerns about FairPoint’s financial capabilities have been
5
reduced through the exercise of a sensitivity analysis (described in the
6
surrebuttal testimony of Mr. Jeanson), FairPoint simply cannot back its
7
operation in Vermont with the level of financial and other resources that
8
Verizon can.
9
Q.
Are you saying that FairPoint cannot or will not succeed in Vermont?
10
A.
No. I am saying that there are risks, and the risks are not trivial.
11
Q.
Can these risks be mitigated?
12
A.
Yes. Most of the conditions proposed by myself and the rest of the
13
Department’s witnesses in surrebuttal and prior testimony are safeguards,
14
intended to reduce the likelihood of problems occurring because of the
15
transaction, or reducing the magnitude of the problem for Vermont if they do.
16
We are proposing financial and managerial safeguards, service quality and
17
customer service safeguards, safeguards for the systems conversion,
18
competitive safeguards, and pricing and service availability safeguards. These
19
and other conditions proposed by various Department witnesses are compiled
20
in Exhibit DPS-CJC-5.
21
Q.
Do these safeguards eliminate the risks of this transaction?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 4 of 42
1
A.
No, I believe that they will reduce the risk to Vermont to acceptable levels,
2
but they will not eliminate it entirely. The remaining risk continues to create a
3
significant downside for Vermont, although one that is not as large as with the
4
safeguards.
5
Q.
Is the Department recommending any other types of conditions?
6
A.
Yes. The Department is recommending various other conditions which deal
7
with regulatory issues which arise because FairPoint is a different company
8
with a different origin than Verizon. We are also recommending conditions
9
that are intended to facilitate the resolution of ongoing issues involving
10
Verizon related to service quality and utility poles. These are also
11
summarized in Exhibit DPS-CJC-5. In addition, I would reserve a right to
12
recommend additional conditions or modified conditions based on additional
13
evidence, including but not limited to testimony provided at hearings.
14
Q.
15
16
If the Board imposed these conditions, does the Department believe that the
transaction would be in the public good?
A.
These conditions alone would not be sufficient. The safeguards reduce
17
potential harm but do not by themselves produce a benefit. The other
18
conditions simply deal with new situations that the transaction creates or
19
require FairPoint to meet an expectation or deal with an issue with which we
20
would expect Verizon to deal anyway. What is missing is that which will
21
make Vermont better off because of the transaction. FairPoint has identified a
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 5 of 42
1
number of ways in which it believes the public good will be enhanced by the
2
transaction. I will analyze and discuss these further in my testimony, but in
3
general, I do not believe that the magnitude of the benefits that FairPoint has
4
proposed offset the remaining risks to the state, even with the safeguards that
5
the Department has proposed.
6
Q.
Do you believe that there are benefits that FairPoint could provide which it
7
has not yet offered that would make this transaction a net positive for the
8
public good?
9
A.
Yes. I will describe one, a “consistent coverage” plan for broadband in more
10
detail. Ms. Pariseau, in her surrebuttal testimony, recommends additional
11
service quality standards at a more granular level for network trouble report
12
rates and troubles not cleared in 24 hours.1 I would regard the adoption of
13
these specific and enforceable standards, designed to target “hotspots” of
14
troubles masked by the statewide average, as an enhancement to the public
15
good on service quality. I would also regard Mr. Wheaton’s recommendation
16
that FairPoint include a Vermont resident on its Board of Directors as an
17
enhancement to the public good of Vermont.
1
Ms. Pariseau recommends that FairPoint track on a monthly basis, Trouble Report Rates and Troubles
Not Cleared in 24 Hours by exchange, and that it be required to ensure that no exchange has a rate on any
of these measures that exceeds twice the statewide standard.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 6 of 42
1
2
Public Good/Public Benefits
Q.
3
4
In your opinion, what are some of the key pieces of testimony from FairPoint
witnesses regarding whether or not this transaction will serve the public good?
A.
5
6
7
8
9
10
At page 33 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Nixon testified,
The synergies discussed by Mr. Leach, myself, and others will enable FairPoint to
allocate more resources to provisioning broadband and meeting service commitments
than would otherwise be the case. With implementation of FairPoint’s plan, residents of
Vermont will receive the benefits of expanded broadband infrastructure and internet
service, as well as enhanced telecommunications customer service.
11
At page 46 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Leach testified,
12
13
14
15
[A]s a result of this transaction and the projected synergies, Vermont consumers should
expect to see no related increase in prices, improved customer service, and, most
importantly, greater access to broadband and an array of high-quality advanced services.
16
As stated by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Leach, the primary public benefits to this
17
transaction are (1) more broadband, (2) better customer service, and (3) no
18
increase in prices.
19
Q.
Do you agree that no increase in prices is a public benefit of this transaction?
20
A.
No. Verizon’s ability to raise prices on services which do not qualify as “new
21
services” under the alternative regulation plan is already constrained. Verizon
22
may raise prices on “new services,” and Mr. Skriven, in his rebuttal testimony
23
at pages 10 and 11, objected to my proposal, contained in my prior testimony,
24
to limit price increases on “new services” which FairPoint inherits from
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 7 of 42
1
Verizon. In short, FairPoint’s proposal on prices is nothing more than the
2
status quo, not an enhancement.
3
Q.
4
5
Do you agree that better customer service is a public benefit of this
transaction?
A.
No, because it is not possible to find evidence on which to base such a
6
finding. Fairpoint has not, for example, committed to higher specific and
7
enforceable service quality standards than Verizon. It is true that Fairpoint
8
has promised to remedy Verizon’s repeated failure to meet its residential
9
troubles not cleared within 24 hours standard. However, FairPoint has not
10
shown a plan for doing so. The Department believes that the Board could
11
require Verizon to remedy service quality failures (and should if it does not
12
approve this transaction), and that, if so required, Verizon has the ability to do
13
so. The fact that FairPoint has agreed that it will need to take steps to remedy
14
Verizon’s repeated failure to meet a key service quality metric is certainly a
15
good thing. The Department would certainly expect it. (It would be a serious
16
mistake if FairPoint were to simply claim, like Ms. Porell in her rebuttal
17
testimony, that the standard is simply too difficult to meet.) However, on this
18
issue it seems that FairPoint claims extra credit for saying it will meet the base
19
expectations.
20
21
Q.
Can the Board rely on FairPoint’s statements that they are committed to better
customer service?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 8 of 42
1
A.
If FairPoint had a long track record of delivering excellent customer service, I
2
would say, yes, the Board could take that as evidence that FairPoint was likely
3
to deliver similar results in this larger undertaking. But as Ms. Pariseau
4
describes in her testimony earlier in this case (which FairPoint has not
5
rebutted), and as she shows in her description of consumer complaint trends in
6
her surrebuttal testimony, FairPoint’s track record on service quality is mixed.
7
So while I certainly applaud FairPoint for stating that they are committed to
8
better quality service, and I do not question their sincerity, this is not enough
9
for us to take it for granted that it will be so.
10
Q.
11
12
Do you agree with the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Leach regarding how the
Board should examine the public benefits of this transaction?
A.
I agree that Mr. Leach has identified the biggest potential areas of public
13
benefit: lower rates, better quality service, and expansion of services. I also
14
agree that in some sense expansion of broadband service in particular is the
15
greatest single opportunity for FairPoint to create new value for Vermont. In
16
that sense the company has chosen a good yardstick by which to measure the
17
public benefits of the proposal. I am disagreeing about the amount of new
18
public benefit which we can measure in FairPoint’s proposal.
19
20
Q.
Doesn’t FairPoint’s plan for increased employment in Vermont count as a
public benefit?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 9 of 42
1
A.
Yes, I would agree that the increased employment that FairPoint states it will
2
produce in and near Vermont can be counted a public benefit in the
3
company’s favor. Dr. Ileo describes the magnitude of this benefit in his
4
surrebuttal testimony. However, I would caution against approving this
5
transaction on the basis of increased employment as the sole or primary public
6
benefit, as opposed to one benefit among a number of important benefits.
7
Q.
Why would you recommend that caution?
8
A.
One reason is because FairPoint cannot be held to its promise, and it is
9
therefore not certain that these jobs will actually materialize in Vermont, or if
10
they do, how long they will be here. Nor would I advise the Board in this case
11
to remedy this fact with a condition on the transaction which would require
12
the jobs FairPoint has promised to be located in Vermont for some period. As
13
tempting as it might be to impose such a condition, I believe that the number
14
and location of jobs should be primarily driven by what best serves the
15
interests of the consumers, not driven by a regulatory condition that is not
16
related to that consideration. Moreover, if Vermont were to impose this type
17
of condition and other states were to impose similar conditions, a company
18
like FairPoint with multi-state operations might find itself prevented from
19
organizing its operations in a way that best provided the best, most cost-
20
effective service to consumers.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 10 of 42
1
Beyond the question of whether FairPoint will increase its own employment is
2
whether job creation by FairPoint should be our primary concern even for
3
economic development. It is certainly one factor. However, a more important
4
economic development factor is the extent to which FairPoint provides good
5
quality service, reasonable prices, and investments in the development of the
6
network, which will support all sorts of employers and economic activity
7
across the board.
FairPoint’s Broadband Plan
8
9
Q.
Have you analyzed FairPoint’s broadband plan described in the rebuttal
10
testimony of Mr. Brown and the response to DPS:FP 2-61 (second
11
supplemental), and if so, can you comment on how this proposal compares to
12
the level of service which Verizon would be committed to under the
13
Alternative Regulation Plan?
14
A.
I have reviewed FairPoint’s proposal. In general, I find little that would make
15
it superior to the commitment by Verizon, at least for Vermont consumers.
16
My overall impression from the testimony of Mr. Brown is that FairPoint
17
believes that it can deliver DSL less expensively and somewhat faster than
18
Verizon. However, much of the benefit appears to accrue only to FairPoint,
19
not consumers. I do not fault FairPoint for seeking efficiencies in the
20
deployment of broadband services. In fact, I applaud it. However, what will
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 11 of 42
1
matter to consumers is when and whether broadband service is available, with
2
what capabilities, and at what price.
3
Q.
4
5
Which FairPoint broadband plan have you primarily relied upon in your
analysis?
A.
Since the plan provided in the second supplemental response to DPS:FP 2-
6
61(“the Second Supplemental Plan”) contains more detail and was provided at
7
a later date, I have relied upon that version of the plan.
8
Q.
9
10
Has FairPoint committed to a greater level of broadband availability than
Verizon?
A.
FairPoint has certainly stated that they will exceed the level of broadband
11
service availability promised by Verizon, but a close analysis shows that the
12
size of the commitment is essentially the same as that to which Verizon would
13
be obligated to produce.
14
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
15
2
16
17
18
19
20
2
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 12 of 42
1
END CONFIDENTIAL
2
I have reviewed the locations in which FairPoint says they plan to make
3
investments. I have adjusted FairPoint’s figures to account for investments
4
that Verizon has said that they will make prior to the closing which also
5
appear in FairPoint’s Second Supplemental Plan to determine what
6
incremental investments FairPoint itself would be making. I have also made
7
adjustments to exclude DSL expansions planned by FairPoint which would
8
not count toward the fulfillment of Verizon’s broadband commitment. I have
9
calculated the percentage of broadband availability that these adjusted access
10
line numbers would produce. My adjustments and the results of my
11
calculations are shown in Exhibit DPS-CJC-6, which is a series of
12
spreadsheets I used to arrive at my conclusion.
13
Q.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
What adjustments have you made to FairPoint’s number of planned additional
broadband lines addressable?
A.
I have made two types of adjustment.
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 13 of 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
Using these adjusted figures, what sort of broadband availability would that
produce?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 14 of 42
1
A.
The final page of Exhibit DPS-CJC-6 shows the results of my calculations.
2
First of all, based on Verizon discovery responses, I calculated Verizon’s
3
current3 percentage of access lines qualified for broadband, which I calculated
4
to be
5
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
6
7
8
9
10
11
4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
4
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 15 of 42
1
END CONFIDENTIAL
2
Next I took the number of lines that Verizon reported it planned to have
3
qualified for DSL at the end of 2007 and added to it the adjusted number of
4
additional lines that FairPoint plans to qualify under its Second Supplemental
5
Plan. Then I calculated what level of broadband availability would be,
6
assuming no line losses through the end of 2009. That number was 80.4%.
7
Q.
What would the effect of line losses be?
8
A.
Line losses can have the effect of either increasing or decreasing the
9
percentage of broadband service availability produced from a given number of
10
lines qualified for broadband. If line losses occur proportionally across the
11
company’s territory, or if line losses occur disproportionally among lines
12
which are not qualified for broadband, the denominator of the equation
13
decreases and a given increase in the number of broadband-qualified lines will
14
produce a higher total percentage of lines qualified for broadband. If line loss
15
occurs largely among lines which are not qualified for broadband, this means
16
that some expansion of lines qualified for broadband is needed just to keep the
17
percentage constant.
18
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
19
.
20
.
21
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 16 of 42
1
.
2
.
3
4
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
5
6
Have you prepared an example of the potential effect of line losses on the
results of the broadband availability?
A.
Yes. On the last page of Exhibit CJC-DPS-6, I have recalculated the
7
percentage of broadband availability, assuming some line losses. I kept
8
constant the number of lines newly qualified for broadband by FairPoint. I
9
assumed, for the sake of this example, that Verizon would lose 4% of its
10
access lines during the remainder of 2007. I further assumed that FairPoint
11
would lose 10% of its access lines over the two years 2008-2009, and the
12
same percentage of the lines which had previously been qualified for DSL by
13
Verizon. This produced a broadband availability rate of 85.2%. I note that
14
the range of broadband availability (80.4%-85.2%) produced under my
15
examples, is nearly identical to the range projected by Mr. Brown at page 27
16
of his rebuttal testimony (80-85%).
17
Q.
Are you suggesting that the fact that line losses can increase the percentage of
18
lines qualified for broadband (or reduce the number of lines qualified needed
19
to reach a given target) is somehow inconsistent with the spirit of the
20
agreement reached in the Verizon Alternative Regulation Plan?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 17 of 42
1
A.
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that there is some natural variability in
2
the number of lines, which is used to calculate the percentage of broadband
3
lines qualified. Presumably, either Verizon or FairPoint would seek to limit
4
line losses, and therefore aim to qualify a number of lines for broadband that
5
would allow them to meet the 80% target if they were successful. If either
6
company was somewhat less successful at limiting line losses, then it might
7
result in a slightly higher percentage of lines qualified for broadband.
8
Q.
What conclusion do you draw from your analysis?
9
A.
The effect of line losses is a variable that is not entirely predictable.
10
Therefore, either Verizon or FairPoint will need to aim at least slightly higher
11
than the 80% target in order to be assured of meeting the required level of
12
broadband availability. In the examples I have given, when no line losses are
13
assumed, the commitment contained in the Second Supplemental Plan is
14
essentially at the target required under the Alternative Regulation Plan. If
15
some line losses are assumed, a very modest increase in the percentage of
16
broadband results, but it is due to the effect of the line losses, not because of
17
any increased effort by FairPoint. In essence, the Second Supplemental Plan
18
is not a plan for doing fundamentally more than Verizon is required to do to
19
meet its broadband commitment.
20
21
Q.
Has FairPoint in fact committed to meet Verizon’s broadband availability
benchmarks significantly faster than Verizon would be obligated to do?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 18 of 42
1
2
A.
No.
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
END CONFIDENTIAL
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 19 of 42
1
Q.
2
3
Has FairPoint committed to providing more capable broadband service than
Verizon?
A.
No. Mr. Brown, at page 28 of his rebuttal testimony, says that while the
4
network that FairPoint intends to deploy will be capable of greater speeds,
5
FairPoint intends to mirror Verizon’s 3-Megabit service offering.
6
Q.
Has FairPoint committed to lower broadband service prices than Verizon?
7
A.
No. At page 32 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Brown states that FairPoint will
8
9
mirror the pricing offered by Verizon today.
Q.
In your testimony previously in this docket, you said that, for the purposes of
10
calculating broadband availability which would fulfill the requirements of the
11
alternative regulation plan FairPoint should only be allowed to count lines on
12
which it offers services which have upload and download speeds not less than
13
those offered by Verizon in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, for
14
prices not greater than Verizon offers in those states. Could you address the
15
concerns of Mr. Brown, expressed at page 37 of his rebuttal testimony?
16
A.
Yes. I simply meant that the broadband services FairPoint’s offers in
17
Vermont should be able to equal or better comparable Verizon services in
18
these states on price and speed.
19
Q.
20
21
Did you intend this condition to require that FairPoint offer fiber-to-the-home,
if Verizon offers it in those states?
A.
No.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 20 of 42
1
Q.
Could you illustrate your proposed condition with an example?
2
A.
Yes. Suppose FairPoint offers a DSL service that provides 3 Mbps download
3
speed and 1 Mbps upload speed, for $30/mo. If in those three states, Verizon
4
offered a broadband service that provided the same download and upload
5
speeds for the same price, the condition would be satisfied, regardless of what
6
other broadband services Verizon offered. Likewise, if Verizon offered a
7
3Mbps up/1 Mbps down, but charged $35/mo. for it, or its $30/mo. services
8
all offered lesser upload or download speeds, the condition would also be
9
satisfied. However, if Verizon offered a 3Mbps up/1 Mbps down, but charged
10
$25/mo. for it, or its $30/mo. services all offered greater upload or download
11
speeds than FairPoint’s service, the condition would not be satisfied.
12
Q.
Do you believe that the condition is unnecessary, as Mr. Brown states?
13
A.
No. I am happy to hear Mr. Brown state that FairPoint’s DSL platform will
14
be at least Verizon’s equal and that its pricing will mirror Verizon’s (at least
15
Verizon’s current pricing). However, without a condition, these statements
16
are unenforceable and could change at any time.
17
Q.
In summary, then, is the Second Supplemental Plan a significant improvement
18
over the broadband which would be in place for Verizon if this transaction
19
was not approved?
20
21
A.
No. FairPoint has not outlined how its broadband services will be superior to
Verizon’s for consumers in Vermont. Mr. Brown in his rebuttal testimony
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 21 of 42
1
does talk about the advantages of FairPoint’s technology choices, especially
2
cost savings. While I applaud the prospect of those savings, the benefits
3
appear to accrue entirely to FairPoint. It does not seem that those savings
4
translate into either greater availability or better prices for Vermonters. Nor
5
are greater speeds and capabilities promised, at least for the foreseeable
6
future.
7
Q.
8
expansion similar to the one that Verizon is committed to already?
9
10
How much is FairPoint estimating it will spend to achieve a broadband
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
A.
11
12
13
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Do any of the elements of this estimate appear to be expenditures that Verizon
is already obligated to make?
A.
Yes. According to Attachment A, DPS:FP 2-61.5(Second Supplemental), as
part of Phase II of its broadband plan, Fairpoint intends to install
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 22 of 42
1
2
3
END CONFIDENTIAL
4
Verizon was allowed to spend approximately $6 million on infrastructure
5
projects, primarily to create additional interoffice redundancy, in lieu of
6
paying out Service Quality Compensation Payments in the form of refunds to
7
customers. This compensation was due for failure by Verizon to meet its
8
service quality standards in 2003. According to the reports submitted by
9
Verizon pursuant to that settlement, that project is currently in progress.
10
Q.
How much has FairPoint estimated that this part of the project will cost?
11
A.
That is not clear to me from the materials the Department has received from
12
FairPoint. However, in the Docket 6957 settlement, it was projected that this
13
project would cost
14
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
15
16
17
18
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
Because of the 2006 amendments to the Alternative Regulation Plan including
the broadband commitment, how much would be the foregone rate reduction
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 23 of 42
1
which would otherwise be in place during the presumed period when
2
FairPoint would control the property in Vermont?
3
A.
As of July 1, 2007, the rate reductions which the Board had ordered would go
4
into effect absent the amendments to the plan would have been $9.44 million
5
per year. As of July 1, 2008, the amount would have increased to $11.24
6
million per year. Put another way, the
7
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
8
9
END CONFIDENTIAL
10
that FairPoint has estimated it will spend (minus the amount for projects
11
related to Verizon’s Docket 6957 obligations, minus the amount for DSL
12
deployments contained in FairPoint’s plan which Verizon plans to complete
13
before closing) is the price of the commitment, originally made by Verizon,
14
that allows it to avoid $32.82 million in Board-ordered rate reductions over
15
the period 2008-2010.
16
17
A Consistent Coverage Broadband Plan
Q.
Among the ways that FairPoint or some other company could improve on the
18
current Verizon broadband commitment, what do you think would be the most
19
valuable at this time?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 24 of 42
1
A.
I believe that, for the public, the most valuable way that FairPoint could
2
improve on Verizon’s commitment would be to provide consistent broadband
3
coverage.
4
Q.
What do you mean by “consistent coverage?”
5
A.
I mean making broadband service available to everyone in a local area or
6
region, not only to some.
7
Q.
In much of Vermont today, is broadband service consistently available?
8
A.
No, unfortunately, it is not. Please see Exhibit DPS-CJC-9. This is the latest
9
map that the Department produced for public release of broadband service in
10
Vermont. Although it does not show some recent expansions of broadband
11
service, it will serve to illustrate the pattern of broadband availability in
12
Vermont. There are very few regions of the state that are completely without
13
broadband service. However, in most regions of the state, there are many
14
pockets where broadband service is not available. These pockets are likely
15
present to a greater degree than even is evident from this map, because they
16
are masked by the scale of the map and because the extent of WISP service
17
and Verizon DSL service availability is often estimated.
18
Q.
19
20
21
Isn’t the most important thing to simply get broadband to as many additional
people as possible?
A.
At one time and not very long ago, yes, this was the most important thing.
However, many people in the state now do have access to broadband. Those
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 25 of 42
1
who are left behind are a pressing concern. The state of Vermont is now
2
committed to a goal of 100% broadband availability. When one is committed
3
to covering everyone, and not just a higher fraction of everyone, it is
4
important not only to consider how many more people will be reached, but
5
how difficult it will be to reach those who are still not being covered.
6
Q.
7
8
What challenges does inconsistent broadband coverage present in the effort to
get broadband to everyone?
A.
When the people who do not have broadband service are located in scattered
and discontinuous areas, or when they are in the proverbial “donut”
9
10
surrounding the “donut hole” that has coverage, it can be more difficult and
11
expensive to expand service to all of them than if they were located together
12
in a contiguous area. An existing provider may find it easier to fill in gaps in
13
its coverage, but a new provider may need to overbuild already covered areas
14
to reach uncovered ones when the existing pattern of coverage is not
15
consistent.
16
Q.
Are there areas of the state that have a pattern of continuous coverage today?
17
A.
Yes. The most notable examples of consistent coverage are provided by some
18
of the independent telephone companies in the state, companies like
19
Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom, Topsham Telephone, and
20
Vermont Telephone. These companies provide 100% broadband availability
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 26 of 42
1
across their service territories. FairPoint itself provides 100% DSL
2
availability in some of its exchanges, such as Alburgh and Isle La Motte.
3
Q.
How does the availability of DSL vary across the Verizon footprint today?
4
A.
Please see Exhibit DPS-CJC-10. This is a map illustrating information
5
obtained from FairPoint in discovery about the percentage of broadband
6
availability in Verizon exchanges currently.
7
Q.
8
9
How would DSL availability vary across that footprint under the kind of
broadband deployment plan FairPoint has proposed?
A.
Please see Exhibit DPS-CJC-11. This map, based on data obtained from
10
FairPoint in discovery, illustrates FairPoint’s calculation of the level of DSL
11
availability in its exchanges after its DSL expansion. As you can see, more
12
exchanges have some DSL and many exchanges have more DSL availability,
13
but a pattern of inconsistent coverage persists.
14
Q.
15
16
What kind of broadband plan do you think would have significant public
benefit and would help to provide consistent coverage?
A.
A commitment from FairPoint to achieve 100% broadband availability in 50%
17
of its exchanges by the end of 2010, in addition to meeting the broadband
18
commitment under the Alternative Regulation Plan, would have such value.
19
Q.
Could you clarify what you mean by “exchanges?”
20
A.
Yes. I mean the areas that make up the 99 different Verizon rate centers in the
21
state, including localities which are served by central offices in other states.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 27 of 42
1
These exchanges are shown on the maps I have included as exhibits to show
2
DSL availability.
3
Q.
Could you provide an example of what this might look like?
4
A.
Yes. Please see Exhibit DPS-CJC-12. This map shows what 50 exchanges
5
with continuous coverage might look like. This example is intended to be
6
illustrative, not to show the only acceptable combination of 50 exchanges. I
7
selected these exchanges to be largely contiguous with each other and other
8
areas of continuous coverage, and to include both smaller and larger area
9
exchanges. I considered the availability of broadband service from other
10
alternative providers. I also used information in Attachment A, DPS:FP 2-
11
61.6 (Second Supplemental), and the information provided by Verizon in
12
discovery on central offices in which there were planned DSL expansions in
13
2007 to estimate the difference in the number of access lines which would
14
likely be DSL qualified at closing and the number of additional lines which
15
would be qualified if 100% DSL availability were achieved in these
16
exchanges. I attempted to construct a set which included approximately the
17
same number of additional lines that FairPoint has proposed in its plan to
18
qualify for DSL. To state this another way, the total number of additional
19
DSL lines in this example is similar to FairPoint’s plan, only the distribution
20
is different. Because I did not have information on the number of lines in
21
localities or in certain central offices without switches, I did not include these
22
exchanges in the example.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 28 of 42
1
Q.
2
3
How much more would it cost FairPoint to distribute broadband deployment
in this way?
A.
I do not have any FairPoint-specific information on which to produce a cost
4
estimate. However, Mr. Wierson has suggested in his testimony provided
5
previously in this docket that DSL deployment in a rural area might cost as
6
much as $700 per line qualified. Mr. Brown has suggested in his rebuttal that
7
this is too high. Nevertheless, if providing 100% broadband availability
8
across at least 50% of the exchanges in the Verizon footprint were to cost as
9
much as $700 per line, then
10
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
11
12
13
14
15
16
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
17
18
What other features do you think should be a part of such a consistent
coverage plan?
A.
There are three other features. First, FairPoint should determine which
19
exchanges it will serve with 100% broadband availability, and publicly
20
announce these areas as soon as possible after closing. Second, FairPoint
21
should offer a broadband service plan with a data transmission rate of not less
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 29 of 42
1
than 1.5 Mbps per second in at least one direction throughout these exchanges.
2
Third, to further promote a pattern of consistent coverage the exchanges
3
which are targeted for 100% broadband availability should be contiguous with
4
at least one other exchange (served by FairPoint or another company) with
5
actual or planned 100% broadband availability.
6
Q.
7
8
Why would it be important that FairPoint publicly announce the exchanges in
which it would provide broadband service throughout?
A.
9
Between now and 2010, a substantial amount of public effort and possibly
dollars will be expended in Vermont to reach the goal of 100% broadband
10
availability. By announcing in advance what areas it would provide
11
ubiquitous service, FairPoint would allow time, attention, and resources to be
12
focused on those areas which would remain uncovered. This would also
13
benefit FairPoint by directing publicly-assisted broadband deployment efforts
14
away from areas in which they might compete with FairPoint’s own efforts.
15
Q.
16
17
Why have you proposed that such a plan should include a minimum data
transmission rate?
A.
It is clear that what is considered acceptable speed for a broadband service is
18
increasing over time. It is possible to take a technology like DSL and push it
19
over long loops, but the performance will decrease compared to shorter loops.
20
There should be some minimum acceptable level of service. The 1.5 Mbps
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 30 of 42
1
standard is found in 30 V.S.A., § 8077, which has to do with the establishment
2
of minimum technical service objectives for broadband service in Vermont.
3
Q.
Do you believe that the type of broadband expansion plan that you have just
4
described could be considered a significant public benefit, and could be used
5
to help support a finding that a transaction such as this one was in the public
6
good?
7
A.
8
significant public benefit.
9
10
Yes, a commitment to provide this type of broadband expansion would be a
Capital Investment / Efficiencies / Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions
Q.
In this case, how are the following three the criteria related, all of which have
11
been used by the Board to evaluate transactions like the one that is being
12
proposed: (1) the rate of capital investment, (2) just and reasonable terms and
13
conditions, and (3) the transaction produces efficiencies?
14
A.
In their direct testimony and rebuttal testimony, FairPoint’s witnesses support
15
the position that FairPoint’s planned capital investments are adequate and
16
greater than Verizon’s on a per-line basis. Furthermore, FairPoint’s witnesses
17
appear to say that FairPoint will be able to invest more efficiently than
18
Verizon did in the past, which helps to justify decreases in gross amounts of
19
capital expenditures. Assuming that what FairPoint says is true about its
20
ability to achieve efficiencies, then the question is how will Vermont benefit?
21
Will it benefit by greater impact for the same or reduced capital expenditure
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 31 of 42
1
dollar through an expanded program to reach areas not served by broadband,
2
or by increasing network diversity or increasing maintenance to improve
3
service quality? The testimony of FairPoint’s rebuttal witnesses do not
4
propose significant investments which would produce new outcomes over and
5
above what Verizon would produce. In the alternative, will efficiencies
6
producing reduced expenditures lead to lower rates? The testimony of
7
FairPoint’s witnesses suggest that they will not, except perhaps by Board
8
order.
9
Q.
At page 38 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Leach provides several reasons why
10
he believes an ongoing decline in D&A expense is reasonable. Do you have
11
an opinion on the answer provided by Mr. Leach?
12
A.
Yes. Mr. Leach points out that the decreasing depreciation and amortization
13
is the result of a decline in gross capital expenditures. He defends this as
14
reasonable due to (1) a continuing drop in equipment costs and (2) an
15
expected decline in access lines. I will not dispute either of these two
16
assumptions. However, I will point out that they do not paint a complete
17
picture by themselves. Mr. Leach’s testimony states what is taken by many to
18
be almost a truism—telecom is a declining cost industry (at least many
19
elements are, like the equipment costs that Mr. Leach mentions). If more of
20
the legacy equipment used to provide legacy telephone service becomes fully
21
depreciated and new equipment to support new and/or legacy services does
22
not cost as much as the old equipment did, then there is an opportunity for the
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 32 of 42
1
company to reduce its cost structure. Mr. Leach seems to be saying in effect
2
that there is less investment necessary, but this ignores major unfinished
3
investments which could be made, such as upgrading the network across the
4
state to support increasing levels of broadband service, or undertaking projects
5
to improve the reliability of the network in the state, such as increasing
6
redundancy of interoffice facilities.
7
Q.
Can you address Mr. Leach’s claim on page 49 of his rebuttal testimony that
8
counting DSL Access Line Equivalents when considering per-line investment
9
is double counting?
10
A.
Mr. Leach’s advice would have us count once when it is in FairPoint’s favor
11
on this issue and not at all when it is not. FairPoint excludes DSL and UNE-L
12
from its line counts, but does not exclude the capital investment on these items
13
from its capital expenditure totals. It uses decreasing switched access line
14
numbers, which increases the per line capital investment figures through a
15
reflection in the decline of legacy business, but which does not account for the
16
at least partially counterbalancing increase in business opportunity from DSL.
17
18
19
20
21
BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 33 of 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
END CONFIDENTIAL
Q.
9
At page 50 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Leach states that FairPoint’s
projected total capital expenditures for Vermont are higher than the
10
projections you generated in your prior testimony, and similar to Verizon’s
11
2006 level of capital expenditure. Does this alleviate your concerns about
12
capital expenditure levels?
13
A.
Yes and no. On one level, Mr. Leach’s testimony that FairPoint’s projected
14
capital expenditures in Vermont does provide some reassurance. However, in
15
combination with other FairPoint testimony, it also raises questions. Capital
16
expenditure is a means to an end: maintenance of a reliable network,
17
expansion of services, introduction of broadband, etc. The level of capital
18
expenditure is an important indicator of the likelihood of an outcome, but not
19
the outcome itself. The question raised here is, if FairPoint says it will spend
20
the same amount of capital dollars as Verizon, and its expenditures will be
21
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 34 of 42
1
more efficient than Verizon’s have been in the past, what greater outcomes
2
will it achieve?
3
4
Alternative Regulation and General Regulatory Issues
Q.
Regarding the condition you proposed in your previous testimony in this
5
docket that, “[n]o regulated intrastate telecommunications product or service
6
offered by Verizon under tariff when the transaction closes should be
7
considered a ‘new service’ under the alternative regulation plan, “do you
8
agree with the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Skriven at page 10 and 11 that this
9
condition is inappropriate?
10
A.
No. I believe that Mr. Skriven perhaps has not understood the point of this
11
condition. FairPoint has claimed that they will offer the same or better
12
services than Verizon. Yet, in the case of “new services” under the alternative
13
regulation plan, the Board has reduced ability to police increases in price or
14
even elimination of the services. FairPoint, if it is serious about offering the
15
same or better services, should not be looking to withdraw services or increase
16
prices that consumers can today get from Verizon. Nor do I agree entirely
17
with Mr. Skriven that the policy justification for pricing and other flexibility
18
on new services hinges on an assumption that the provider does not enjoy
19
market power with respect to the new services because the provider initially
20
has no market share. This is an over simplification and defines markets too
21
narrowly. There are “new services” where the degree of market power
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 35 of 42
1
enjoyed by the incumbent is similar to that it enjoys on similar “old services.”
2
For example, one type of “new service” is a bundle of local and long distance
3
calling which was not offered prior to the alternative regulation plan.
4
Obviously, Verizon has more than a zero market share in both local and long
5
distance services.
6
Q.
7
8
Is there an alternative way to frame a condition on this issue without reference
to the alternative regulation plan?
A.
Yes, and I think it will clarify the intent of my proposal. Another way to
frame such a condition would be, “Through December 31, 2010, FairPoint
9
10
shall not withdraw or increase the price on any regulated intrastate
11
telecommunications service offered by Verizon under tariff as of the closing
12
date of this transaction without the approval of the Board.”
13
Q.
Do you agree with the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Skriven at pages 13 and 14
14
where he argues continuing to regulate classic FairPoint under 30 V.S.A. §
15
227d will simplify the transition?
16
A.
No. First of all, whether or not classic FairPoint would qualify for regulation
17
under § 227d is a legal question, and I will not here make a legal argument.
18
However, it is my belief that it likely would not qualify. I believe it is at least
19
unclear that FairPoint would so qualify. I believe that if the Board were not to
20
bring clarity to this issue it could lead to uncertainty about the regulatory
21
status of classic FairPoint as soon as transaction closed. This in turn could
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 36 of 42
1
lead to litigation during the transition period, which would be an unwelcome
2
distraction. I do not believe that the Board should decide the question of
3
whether classic FairPoint qualifies for § 227d based on whether it would be
4
convenient for the company if it were so, but on the legal merits of the
5
question. The Board should establish what the parameters under which classic
6
FairPoint will operate on such issues as rates and rate changes, notice and
7
filing of tariffs, investment levels, and service quality. I believe that the
8
conditions I proposed in my previous testimony in this case regarding classic
9
FairPoint would serve that purpose if the Board finds that classic FairPoint
10
11
does not qualify for regulation under § 227d.
Q.
Do you have a response to Mr. Skriven’s rebuttal testimony at pages 15 and
12
16 opposing your recommended condition that FairPoint should be required to
13
demonstrate that it has obtained legally binding commitments from Verizon to
14
continue to provide the state-specific information for the states which would
15
not become part of FairPoint’s operations, contained in the annual
16
Performance Benchmark Report?
17
A.
I do. Mr. Skriven states that “FairPoint has an interest in ensuring that the
18
Board has the best data available in order to make [assessments of FairPoint’s
19
performance under the Alternative Regulation Plan],” but he does not provide
20
any indication of how that will be accomplished. This merely sets FairPoint
21
up to fail in meeting the expectation. I also believe that Mr. Skriven’s
22
statement, “this is not information or activity over which FairPoint has any
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 37 of 42
1
control,” misses the point. Both FairPoint and Verizon are petitioners.
2
FairPoint is seeking permission to acquire the system. Verizon is seeking
3
permission to exit (although it will still have more limited operations in the
4
state). Obviously, FairPoint would have a great deal of difficulty requiring
5
that Verizon provide it information unless it had a contract or other legally
6
binding commitment from Verizon, which is why it is important that FairPoint
7
demonstrate that it has this commitment (and its co-petitioner Verizon
8
demonstrate that it has made this commitment to FairPoint) before the
9
transaction is allowed to close.
10
Q.
At page 16 of his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Skriven states that it is unclear
11
whether your proposed condition, “… [T]he Board and the Department should
12
have the ability to seek rate reductions commensurate with any increase in
13
Federal Universal Service Funding which the Vermont operation may be
14
eligible to receive as a direct or indirect result of the transaction,” refers to
15
FairPoint’s existing operations or the exchanges it seeks to acquire. Can you
16
clarify your intention on this point?
17
A.
18
19
Yes. I intended to refer to the USF support that FairPoint would receive for
the former Verizon service territory.
Q.
Can you clarify if you meant your recommendation to include the type of
20
year-to-year changes in the Federal Universal Service Fund to which Mr.
21
Skriven refers at the top of page 17 of his rebuttal testimony?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 38 of 42
1
A.
I did not intend my recommendation to encompass year-to-year fluctuations in
2
Federal Universal Service Funding, which I understand Verizon already
3
experiences. My intention was that this should apply if Federal Universal
4
Service Funding increased because of a change merely in who owned the
5
system, not because of future changes in law, or changes in behavior of the
6
operator, or in other changes that might only have an incidental relationship to
7
mere identity of the owner, such as changes in access lines.
8
Q.
9
FUSF funding increases because of the change in identity of the owner, and
10
11
Why do you think it would be appropriate to impose such a condition only if
not if it decreases?
A.
The intention of the universal service system is to provide a benefit for
12
consumers. Verizon and the Board have recognized this by using Universal
13
Service Funding that Verizon receives to make service more affordable, by
14
flowing through funding in the form of a bill credit. I am not aware of a
15
specific requirement on Verizon to benefit consumers in this way. However, I
16
believe that it is important to preserve the principle that consumers should
17
benefit from increased Universal Service Funding. If Universal Service
18
Funding decreases due to the change in ownership that this transaction will
19
produce, then FairPoint, not consumers, should bear the burden, because it is a
20
result of FairPoint’s own decision and should have been a factor in negotiating
21
the purchase price with Verizon.
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 39 of 42
1
Q.
Has your review of information provided by FairPoint since your prior
2
testimony in this docket led you to believe that any additional conditions
3
would be necessary in order to completely transfer Verizon’s regulatory
4
obligations to FairPoint?
5
A.
Yes. If the Board approves this transaction, it should make clear that
6
FairPoint must perform on all of Verizon’s obligations under the settlement in
7
Docket 6957, in which Verizon was allowed to make specific investments to
8
improve network reliability in lieu of refunds to customers which were due for
9
failure to meet service quality standards. Verizon has not completed all of the
10
projects it is obligated to perform under the order in that Docket, and it is
11
unlikely that they will all be completed at the time of closing, if the
12
transaction is approved. These investments are intended to be incremental
13
investments, over and above ordinary investments. As I described earlier in
14
my testimony, it appears that FairPoint has included as part of the expense in
15
its broadband expansion plan at least one of the projects which flows from the
16
obligation in Docket 6957.
17
18
Availability of Emergency Services
Q.
Has FairPoint’s rebuttal testimony or responses to discovery questions
19
alleviated your earlier concerns about its ability to respond to a widespread
20
natural disaster or other widespread emergency?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 40 of 42
1
A.
Partially. However, one concern that I have was not fully addressed. Mr.
2
Nixon addressed this very briefly at page 26 of his rebuttal testimony.
3
However, he did not address with any specificity how FairPoint would
4
compensate for the fact that it would have, company-wide, a much smaller
5
labor force on which to draw in case of an emergency than Verizon would
6
have. In response to the information request DPS:FP 3-37, Mr. Nixon
7
indicated that, in the event of a widespread emergency or natural disaster,
8
resources would be available from other FairPoint companies and additional
9
resources would be available through the TANE Emergency Resource Book.
10
While it is somewhat reassuring that FairPoint will be able to draw on its other
11
companies and seek agreements with other companies within Northern New
12
England to provide aid in an emergency, this does not provide the same level
13
of resource that is currently available to Verizon. Verizon can draw within its
14
own company on personnel across the entire eastern seaboard and many other
15
parts of the company. The potential size of the pool on which Verizon could
16
call in case of a disaster is much larger than the operation in Northern New
17
England. If this transaction is approved, northern New England will be by far
18
Fairpoint’s largest operation, and Fairpoint will have far more employees than
19
it could potentially call upon from other companies in the region (not to
20
mention that those smaller companies might also be impacted by a widespread
21
emergency).
22
Q.
Do you have a safeguard to propose?
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 41 of 42
1
A.
Yes. The Board should require FairPoint to demonstrate in a compliance
2
filing six months after closing that it has used best efforts to enter into mutual
3
aid agreements with comparably-sized or larger carriers in case of a natural
4
disaster or other widespread emergency.
5
Conclusion
6
Q.
In summary, do you believe that there are circumstances under which the
7
Department could support the transfer of control of Verizon’s operations in
8
Vermont to FairPoint?
9
A.
Yes, but they are not, in total, the plans and circumstances which FairPoint
10
has proposed. I have stated previously that the Department is prepared to
11
support a transaction which will transfer ownership of Verizon’s operations in
12
Vermont to a new owner who wants to be here and focus on opportunities in
13
Vermont. However, we believe that such a transaction must make
14
Vermonters better off, not merely trade one set of issues for a different one.
15
In performing its analysis of this proposal, the Department has approached it
16
with an open mind, and has worked to identify both opportunities for Vermont
17
and the risks that Vermont could be harmed. We have been, and continue to
18
be, open to an exchange of ideas and information with FairPoint about how to
19
make a transaction work for Vermonters. We are not able to be more positive
20
about the transaction that has been proposed, but we also believe that our
Department of Public Service
Christopher J. Campbell, Witness
Docket 7270
August 10, 2007
Page 42 of 42
1
conclusion is the right one to make, based on what we have seen in this docket
2
so far.
3
Q.
Does this conclude your testimony?
4
A.
Yes, it does.