Illinois Commerce Commission approves sale of VZ (GTE/Contel) to Frontier [telecom]

On Wednesday 21-April-2010, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) approved the sale of remaining legacy GTE and GTE-once-Contel in the state of Illinois still held by VeriZon, to Frontier.

This makes Illinois the eighth of the nine states required to approve of the transfer of VeriZon landline operations in some or most of up to

15 states across the US. NOTE that each state agencies' approval only applies to their own state, and is NOT binding one way or the other on what happens to any other state where VeriZon is selling exchange areas to Frontier.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission still needs to approve of the sale of VeriZon to Frontier in its state. In this case, the sale is not of any GTE or Contel, but rather the entire BOC, legacy Bell Atlantic/ C&P-of-West-Virginia, from VeriZon to Frontier. Whether or not the WV-PSC approves, a decision is expected during May or June 2010.

The Federal Communications Commission also needs to approve of the proposed transaction before any of it (all or part) can actually take effect. The Federal Trade Commission has already approved of the sale. Frontier's shareholders have also approved, but approval from VeriZon's shareholders is not required.

The FCC is expected to give an announcement of whether or not it approves probably AFTER West Virginia has made its announcement.

My understanding is that this is NOT an "all or nothing" deal, with the exception of the approvals from the Federal agencies. Each state is responsible ONLY for its own jurisdiction, with no direct effect on any other states' situations (with one exception to be mentioned below). Two/three years ago, with the sale of legacy BOC NYNEX/NET&T in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont from VeriZon to FairPoint, ALL THREE states' regulatory agencies had to approve before ANY of the deal could be considered effective, however -- as well as the FCC/etc.

There was an Administrative Law Judge in Illinois who a couple of months ago recommended that the ICC reject the VeriZon/Frontier transaction. This was NOT binding, as seen by the ICC's unanimous decision today to approve of the VeriZon/Frontier sale, which applies ONLY to Illinois as well. (Some news items appeared to state that the Illinois ALJ's decision applied to the entire deal, and also appeared to state that the judge's decision was a binding rejection of the entire deal, which it is NOT in both cases!

There is one small case where the sale of an exchange area in one state is dependent on that of an adjacent state, and that involves the Crows-Hematite VA ratecenter, which is at the VA/WV state-line border. The customers in this ratecenter get their dial-tone from VZ/BA/C&P-WV's White Sulphur Springs WV c.o.switch. The West Virginia PSC still has to approve of the sale of legacy BOC C&P-WV from VeriZon to Frontier before anything can continue forward w/r/t Crows-Hematite VA. Frontier does have a filing before the Virginia State Corporation Commission to takeover operation (rates, tariffs, etc) of the Crows-Hematite VA from VeriZon, assuming that the WV-PSC approves of the sale of legacy BOC C&P-WV from VeriZon to Frontier.

Of course, ALL of this also still requires approval of the FCC!

An ICC Press Release has been uploaded to their website, dated today, Wednesday 21-April-2010:

formatting link
The actual order hasn't yet been uploaded to the ICC website as of the time that I'm preparing this posting, but the main page for this docket/case involving VeriZon and Frontier in Illinois (Case 09-0268) can be found at:
formatting link
with relevant documents found at:
formatting link
When Wednesday's actual ICC order is finally issued and uploaded to their website, probably later on Wednesday night, it will likely be available from the "documents" page.

Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina

Reply to
Mark J. Cuccia
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.