HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-25 Board of Selectmen PacketPage 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Schena, Paula
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: FW:
From: Philip Rushworth [mailto:phil@rctv.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject:
Peter,
FYI, I got this letter the mail today.
Phil Rushworth
0
1/18/2006
Page 2 of 2
ver'700
Peter T.'Bowman
Vice Y'resident w WVRt
External Affairs
t'eriron Coin inunicadous
185 F-inktin $Ircct, Room 1700
B0,mo, NIA 02110
Mr. Phil Rushwortlr
Rending Community T ele:vision
224 Asir Street
Reading, vlA 01867-
Dear Mr..Rusltworth,
You may have beard that die .Board of Sel"Imen is reviewing Verizon °s application fora video license in
Rt:qtdino. I write to trill you snore about diesi, now video and telecotxnnunicatiarxs offerings, and to let you
know that Verizon is eager to briztg video service: to your community.
Verizon is leading the Charge to revolutioniz the wa1v we live., work-,,and C:C7TUmunicate.. We,=
delivering: fiber optic coanections directly to the doors of loonies and small businmes in 'Reading.
Customers' feedback has been tremendous, as theywelcnrne the power of our new leading-edge fiber
network, and our advanced'voice and data services lino'.ran as Verizon FiOS'.
Our network contains enough bandwidth ttx..olf r not just voice atad data, but also a genuine choice;'for
%iideo see-vita, kriowtt as I- QS TV,` FiOS TV evill carry hundreds of eltattzit:Cs. of cliverse'prograxusrting,
thousands of shows and ritnvies on;dernand, tall at prices that will be highly cOmpetitive with the:local
cable provider.
What FiOS TV Mean,; to Reading Cousutrters:
* Close to 200 c.battttels in our'`expandc;d basie" packs
0 Diverse prograrnn-drrg; bigh quality, nultilirxgual no,. sI sports, and cntertainniern prograrant ng.
o Breathtaking, high-definition TV pictures:
* More than 1,000 tnusie, sports, ttnd feature movie presentations,
0 100 percent digital lineup available.
e Sophisticated but easy to us parental controls.
Before .lriOS `t`V comes to your home, however, Vcrizoa niitist obtain a video license from the Beard of
Selecttncn. Veril..en has offered a stating, fair agreement that is the product of`tttonths of negotiations
with town officials. Thanks to the town, leadership, Reading citizens are gettigaI closer to having a new,
trusted choice for video services. Town offie:ials deserve thanks and recognition for this effort.
The Board of Selectmen is o%pr cte d to. Vote on Verizon's request to offer FiOS:TV service on
Wednesday, January 25. A ` YES" vote'by the Board means you could have: another choice: for cable
through V'enzon. riOS TV within the.next few months. >~or rnoro information artd to register your support
for real choice, please visit t ww V.verizonxorfthna atad click on the lint "Support Video Choice in
Reading."
At Verizon, we all truly believe that the hest in technology is yet to come - next in Reading".
Regards,
1/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: frankburke [frankburke@myway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:30 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Vote on Verizon cable licence
To: Reading Board of Selectmen
Re: January 25 vote on Verizon's application for a cable TV license
Today, I received a letter signed by Peter Bowman, a VP at Verizon, inviting me to "register my support" for their license
application. The letter gives directions to a link on Verizon's web site. I may have received this letter due to my Town
Meeting Member status.
I am not accepting Verizon's invitation to register my support. While I have not been close to the discussions on this issue, I
understand that there may still be some disagreement between the Town and Verizon over some language issues regarding
definition on a cable system.
I urge the Board to "hang tough" with Verizon over this, and any other issues. Reading will have no better opportunity than
now in contract negotiations. If this means that Verizon walks away from Reading, that's fine with me.
Thank you for your consideration
Frank Burke
Town Meeting Member
Precinct 2
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - httD://www.mvwav.com
D
1/18/2006
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Ray Jackson [rjack92773@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 20061:19 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Support Verizon's video license application
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license because I
want to control cable price increases. According to the Consumer Federation of America,
average cable rates have risen nearly 60 percent over the past 10 years, and a recent FCC
report stated that the average monthly cable bill increased 5.5 percent in 2004 - on top
of an 8 percent increase the previous year.
On the contrary, I have seen the price of other new technologies such as my cell phone and
Internet service decrease. I believe these rate hikes are related to the fact most cable
companies run as monopolies in local markets. Without competition, they have no
motivation to control prices, or improve service.
Meanwhile, Verizon has invested in Reading by installing its advanced fiber optic network,
which offers video, Internet and voice services. Verizon not only offers us an
alternative to cable, but will provide residents and local businesses with hundreds of
channels and thousands of shows and movies on demand, all at lower prices.
I hear our neighbors in Woburn will have access to Verizon's FiOS TV very soon. Please
don't let the Town of Reading fall too far behind them. Our citizens also deserve the
best technology available along with a choice for video services. Please vote in favor of
Verizon's petition for a video license so Reading residents and businesses can take
advantage of lower prices, more enhanced offerings and better customer service.
Please make my vote as a long time Reading resident count
Sincerely,
Ray Jackson
316. Lowell St
Reading , MA 01867
1
D
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Christopher Doyle [doyda@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:45 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Give us cable choice!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
My name is Christopher Doyle and I live at 101 Lowell Street. I was one of the first
residents in Reading to sign up for the FiOS phone and internet service when Verizon began
offering it last spring and I am very happy with their service,.
I am watching with interest as Verizon gets ready to offer its new video service in
Reading. I understand that this service, called FiOS TV, is going to provide a more
robust channel line up with more enhanced offerings than are currently available today,
all at better prices.
Reading residents already have access to super fast FiOS Internet service, and once the
Board of Selectmen gives Verizon permission, we will be able to take full advantage of
this advanced fiber optic network with FiOS TV. I hear the Board of Selectmen are voting
on January 25, and am asking that you vote in favor of Verizon's petition, which will
bring citizens a choice for video services. Verizon has presented an agreement that will
bring us more competition, better prices, and more channels offerings.
Seems like something we all can support.
Please move quickly and vote yes on Verizon's cable franchise as soon as possible.
Reading residents want more choice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher Doyle
101 Lowell St
Reading , MA 01867
1
CV
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: kelly marini [ptcruiser13@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:31 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Support Verizon's video license application
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license because I
want to control cable price increases. According to the Consumer Federation of America,
average cable rates have risen nearly 60 percent over the past 10 years, and a recent FCC
report stated that the average monthly cable bill increased 5.5 percent in 2004 on top of
an 8 percent increase the previous year.
On the contrary, I have seen the price of other new technologies such as my cell phone and
Internet service decrease. I believe these rate hikes are related to the fact most cable
companies run as monopolies in local markets. Without competition, they have no
motivation to control prices, or improve service.
Meanwhile, Verizon has invested in Reading by installing its advanced fiber optic network,
which offers video, Internet and voice services. Verizon not only offers us an
alternative to cable, but will provide residents and local businesses with hundreds of
channels and thousands of shows and movies on demand, all at lower prices.
I hear our neighbors in Woburn will have access to Verizons FiOS TV very soon. Please
don't let the Town of Reading fall too far behind them. Our citizens also deserve the
best technology available along with a choice for video services. Please vote in favor of
Verizon's.petition for a video license so Reading residents and businesses can take
advantage.of lower prices, more enhanced offerings and better customer service.
Sincerely,
kelly marini
18 Grove St
Reading , MA 01867
1
Advnft~
LV
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Pokung Lin [blin100@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:54 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please Support Verizon's video license application
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
Hello, I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license,
mainly because I believe that we should have a choice in our cable provider. Sure, the
price may go down or up, but personally, I think we just need a choice. People can make
their own choices in cable. If they don't want Fios, then they can have Comcast.
Verizon has invested in Reading by installing its advanced fiber optic network, which
offers video, Internet and voice services. Verizon not only offers us an alternative to
cable, but will provide residents and local businesses with hundreds of channels and
thousands of shows and movies on demand, all at lower prices.
I hear our neighbors in Woburn will have access to Verizon's FiOS TV very soon. Please
don't let the Town of Reading fall too far behind them. Our citizens also deserve the
best technology available along with a choice for video services. Please vote in favor of
Verizon's petition for a video license so Reading residents and businesses can take
advantage of lower prices, more enhanced offerings and better customer service.
Thanks, and if this does pass, I hope you too, get Fios.
Sincerely,
Pokung Lin
976 Main St
Reading , MA 01867
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Joseph lacoviello Doe@joei.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:51 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please, Give us cable choice!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am watching with interest as Verizon gets ready to offer its new video service in
Reading. I understand that this service, called FiOS TV, is going to provide a more
robust channel line up with more enhanced offerings than are currently available today -
all at better prices.
Reading residents already have access to super fast FiOS Internet service, and once the
Board of Selectmen gives Verizon permission, we will be able to take full advantage of
this advanced fiber optic network with FiOS TV. I hear the Board of Selectmen are voting
on January 25, and am asking that you vote in favor of Verizon's petition, which will
bring citizens a choice for video services. Verizon has presented an agreement that will
bring us more competition, better prices, and more channels offerings.
Seems like something we all can support.
Please move quickly and vote "yes" on Verizon's cable franchise as soon as possible.
Reading residents want more choice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph Iacoviello
51 Lilah Ln
Reading , MA 01867
1
D
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Thomas Tamburrino [ttamb@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please support Verizon's video license
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
We are in the midst of an exciting and revolutionary change in the way we work, live, and
communicate. That's why it is critical that Reading citizens have access to all the
services provided by Verizon's new fiber optic network. This network contains enough
bandwidth to offer not just voice and data but also a genuine choice for video service.
Verizon's alternative to cable is extraordinary. In Texas, Florida, and Virqinia, their
customers can choose hundreds of channels of diverse programming, thousands of shows and
movies on demand, and the prices.are competitive with cable's. With cable bills
continuing to increase, it would be a welcome change to see competition impact cable
prices as it has for other technology offerings.
That's why I urge the Board of Selectmen to issue Verizon a video license as soon as
possible. Thanks to your leadership, Reading residents and businesses are getting closer
to having a new choice for their video services. Please vote to provide citizens with
more choice, lower prices and better service offerings so we can take full advantage of
this new state-of-the-art fiber network right away.
The decision to de-regulate the cable industry has been a total failure due to the fact
there has been no competition. I have complained every year to Comcast about their
increasing the rates at double the inflation rate since de-regulation, each time they have
sent me back a reply saying what a great value it is, yes, for the company.
When Verizon came out with a lower broadband rate in their DSL, I again wrote and they
said they were examining their price point for broadband, and apparently they decided to
keep overcharging. Now DSL is available for as little as $14.95 per month, still Comcast
arrogantly refused to lower their prices.. I feel no loyalty to this company, and once
Verizon is allowed to provide cable access I will switch all my three accounts to them
without hesitating. Have dealt with them on my wireless account and family phone service.
They are much more knowledgeable, courteous, and transparent in their dealings with
their customers.
Please, please, please give Verizon the ok.
Sincerely,
Thomas Tamburrino
54 Parkview Rd
Reading, MA 01867
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: EDWARD PEDDLE [edward.k.peddle@us.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:22 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Give us cable choice!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am watching with interest as Verizon gets ready to offer_ its new video service in
Reading. I understand that this service, called FiOS TV, is going to provide a more
robust channel line up with more enhanced offerings than are currently available today -
all at better prices.
Reading residents already have access to super fast FiOS Internet service, and once the
Board of Selectmen gives Verizon permission, we will be able to take full advantage of
this advanced fiber optic network with FiOS TV. I hear the Board of Selectmen are voting
on January 25, and am asking that you vote in favor of Verizon's petition, which will
bring citizens a choice for video services. Verizon has presented an agreement that will
bring us more competition, better prices, and more channels offerings.
Seems like something we all can support.
Please move quickly and vote "yes" on Verizon's cable franchise as soon as possible.
Reading residents want more choice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
EDWARD PEDDLE
273 Grove St
Reading , MA 01867
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: paul cain [paulc193@excite.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:45 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please support Verizon's video license
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I currently subscribe to Verizon Fios for my telephone and internet access. I have found
the system both fast and reliable.
I would like to see an alternative to Comcast, if only to bring some competition to cable
TV. Prices for the existing cable TV are too high for my retirement income, and I would
welcome alternative means to obtain cost affordable cable TV.
I urge the Board of Selectmen to issue Verizon a video license as soon as possible.
Thanks to your leadership, Reading residents and businesses are getting closer to having a
new choice for their video services. Please. vote to provide citizens with more choice,
lower prices and better service offerings so we can take full advantage of this new state-
of-the-art fiber network right away.
Sincerely,
paul cain
319 West St
Reading , MA 01867
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: James Ruszkowski D.ruszkowski@geticon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:23 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Verizon's Video License Request
Dear Selectmen,
I am writing to request that you support, and vote "YES" to Verizon's request for a video
license. Competition will help keep subscription cost down and will ultimately deliver
better service to the people of Reading when we have the opportunity to chose video
providers. Comcast has been raising fees every year since it's inception. Without any
competition they will continue to do so.
Please support Verizon in it's request to provide an alternative to the people of Reading..
From what I have been reading in the Chronicle they plan to provide support to our local
RCTV broadcast company. Please don't let a disagreement in the definition of "Cable"
prevent delivering a leading edge service that would benefit the whole town.
We should learn from the past as with the landfill.development, change is inevitable and I
believe that the landfill's completed development project has turned out for the better
good of the town. Technology is continuously evolving, if the Town of Reading wants to
stay ahead with future technologies we can not remain stagnant.
Please vote YES!
An e-mail response on your position would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
James A. Ruszkowski
74 Forest Street
Reading, MA 01867
781-944-2752 Home
1781-223-2738 Cell
D
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: scott spinney [sspinney@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:51 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please support Verizon's video license
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
We are in the midst of an exciting and revolutionary change in the way we work, live, and
communicate. That's why it is critical that Reading citizens have access to all the
services provided by Verizon's new fiber optic network. This network contains enough
bandwidth to offer not just voice and data but also a genuine choice for video service.
Verizon's alternative to cable is extraordinary. In Texas, Florida, and Virginia, their
customers can choose hundreds of channels of diverse programming, thousands of shows and
movies on demand, and the prices are competitive with cable's. With cable bills
continuing to increase, it would be a welcome change to see competition impact cable
prices as it has for other technology offerings.
That's why I urge the Board of Selectmen to issue Verizon a video license as soon as
possible. Thanks to your leadership, Reading residents and businesses are getting closer
to having a new choice for their video services. Please vote to provide citizens with
more choice, lower prices and better service offerings so we can take full advantage of
this new state-of-the-art fiber network right away.
Sincerely,
scott spinney
323 South St
Reading , MA 01867
1
t (CP
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Keith Becker [keith.becker@verizon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:08 AM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Please support Verizon's video license
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
We are in the midst of an exciting and revolutionary change in the way we work, live, and
communicate. That's why it is critical that Reading citizens have access to all the
services provided by Verizon's new fiber optic network. This network contains enough
bandwidth to offer not just voice and data but also a genuine choice for video service.
Verizon's alternative to cable is extraordinary. In Texas, Florida, and Virginia, their
customers can choose hundreds of channels of diverse programming, thousands of shows and
movies on demand, and the prices are competitive with cable's. With cable bills
continuing to increase, it would be a welcome change to see competition impact cable
prices as it has for other technology offerings.
Again this year COMCAST has once again increased the cost of their service to the resident
of Reading. In this day and age, when annual salary's increases do not keep up with the
cost of living, I feel that COMCAST needs to have competition in Reading in order to put a
end to their yearly price increases.
This is not for the Town, but for the residents of the Town of Reading who have provided
to the Town, the ability to rebuild our schools by voting to increase our taxes. It is
time for the Town Government in Reading to give back to the people it represents by
granting this license to Verizon.
That's why I urge the Board of Selectmen to issue Verizon a video license as soon as
possible. Thanks to your leadership, Reading residents and businesses are getting closer
to having a new choice for their video services. Please vote to provide citizens with
more choice, lower prices and better service offerings so we can take full advantage of
this new state-of-the-art fiber network right away.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Becker
126 Charles St
Reading , MA 01867
1
D
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Theresa Boucher [theresa.boucher@Verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Support Verizon's video license application
Dear-Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license because I
want to control cable price increases. According to the Consumer Federation of America,
average cable rates have risen nearly 60 percent over the past 10 years, and a recent FCC
report stated that the average monthly cable bill increased 5.5 percent in 2004 on top of
an 8 percent increase the previous year.
On the contrary, I have seen the price of other new technologies such as my cell phone and
Internet service decrease. I believe these rate hikes are related to the fact most cable
companies run as monopolies in local markets. Without competition, they have no
motivation to control prices, or improve service. I have lived in Reading for over 12
years and have not had the ability to chose my local cable provider. My cable service has
transitioned from one company to another (several times) with no choice by me.
Meanwhile, Verizon has invested in Reading by installing its advanced fiber optic network,
which offers video, Internet and voice services. Verizon not only offers us an
alternative to cable, but will provide residents and local businesses with hundreds of
channels and thousands of shows and movies on demand, all at lower prices.
I hear our neighbors in Woburn will have access to Verizons FiOS TV very soon. Please
don't let the Town of Reading fall too far behind them. Our citizens also deserve the
best technology available along with a choice for video services. Please vote in favor of
Verizon's petition for a video license so Reading residents and businesses can take
advantage of lower prices, more enhanced offerings and better customer service.
Sincerely,
Theresa Boucher
387 West St
Reading , MA 01867
1
0
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Jean DiPasquale [dipasqualej@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:02 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: give us competition with comcast support verizon
please support verizon to bring video to reading. comcast needs to have competition as they increase bills any
time they want to over the years
1/18/2006
~V
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Richard McCulley [richardmdculley@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:47 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Support Verizon's video license application
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license Because I
actively support the concept that competition will keep prices down and quality.
I have lived in Reading for 25 years and I have been upset that Comcast's rates have
escalated far more than general prices while their quality and response to customer
complaints has been horrible.
Please allow us to have a choice in providers.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Richard McCulley
52 Wakefield St
Reading , MA 01867
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Corinne Shea [Beanies781 @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:39 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Support Verizon's video license application
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I am writing to ask that you support Verizon's application for a video license because I
want to control cable price increases. According to the Consumer Federation of America,
average cable rates have risen nearly 60 percent over the past 10 years, and a recent FCC
report stated that the average monthly cable bill increased 5.5 percent in 2004 - on top
of an 8 percent increase the previous year. .
On the contrary, I have seen the price of other new technologies such as my cell phone and
Internet service decrease. I believe these rate hikes are related to the fact most cable
companies run as monopolies in local markets. Without competition, they have,no
motivation to control prices, or improve service.
Meanwhile, Verizon has invested in Reading by installing its advanced fiber optic network,
which offers video, Internet and voice services. Verizon not only offers us an
alternative to cable, but will provide residents and local businesses with hundreds of
channels and thousands of shows and movies on demand, all at lower prices.
I hear our neighbors in Woburn will have access to Verizon's FiOS TV very soon. Please
don't let the Town of Reading fall too far behind them. Our citizens also deserve the
best technology available along with a choice for video services. Please vote in favor of
Verizon's petition for a video license so Reading residents and businesses can take
advantage of lower prices, more enhanced offerings and better customer service.
Sincerely,
Corinne Shea
192 West St
Reading , MA 01867
I
Q000001g
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HEARING IN RE:
VERIZON
AND
TOWN OF READING
BEFORE: Peter I. Hechenbleikner,
Town Manager, and Board of selectmen
MEMBERS: Camille Anthony, Chairperson
Ben Tafoya, Member
James Bonazoli, Member
Joe Duffy, Member
Richard Schubert, Member
Paula Schena, secretary
PRESENT:
For the Town of Reading:
William Solomon, Esquire
319 Main street
Stoneham, MA 02180
special counsel for the Town
For verizon:
Peter T. Bowman, Vice-President,
External Affairs
verizon
185 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 743-8874
Paul C. Trane, Principal consultant,
and John L. Harrington, Esq.
verizon, Telecommunications
Insight Group
38 union square
Somerville, MA 02143
(617) 628.3010
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
2
Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
Thomas W. Antonucci, Esquire
Wiley Rein & Fielding, LLP
1776 I< Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7049
Also Present:
Marie C. Lasota, Verizon
M. Eric Edgington, Verizon
Andrea Dudley, Verizon
Mary Rafferty, Verizon
Town Hall
Reading, MA
Monday, 7:00 p.m.
January 9, 2006
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
3
1
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I'll call to
Page 2
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
order on January 9, the Board of selectmen, and
first on the agenda is a continued public
hearing for the verizon who we're in
negotiations with a cable contract.
So, Pete, do we turn it over to you?
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Sure. Just to
remind you where we are, there are copies, draft
of minutes in your material, just to remind you
of certain of the issues where we left after the
last meeting which was on December 19 was for
verizon to get back to us on several issues.
one was the issue of the definition of
cable system; one was with additional
information on providing an accelerated schedule
for residential' connections; and the other was
on how the business installations would be
addressed.
You have gotten a.couple of e-mails
and other items of. correspondence. There's an
e-mail from Peter Bowman from verizon. It's
addressed to the board members. There's also an
e-mail from Susan Darling and from Lawrence
Darling, and then in tonight's packet, you have
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
4
1
2
3
an e-mail from Ed Riopelle, I guess it is, on
the issue of on demand service. And also from
Fred van Magness and that was it on this matter.
Page 3
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZON14RG(1).tXt
I guess tonight we are not
anticipating a conclusion to this, as much as I
think everybody in the room would probably like
to have that. we still have some outstanding
issues so this is sort of a progress report for
verizon to make on the various issues that are
before you. once those issues are addressed, as
counsel reminded, there are still some issues
that we --minor issues we have to clean up.
when we finish the update, then we would
recommend a continuation until we're suggesting
January 25 as a Wednesday, if the board is
available, at that date. And we would
anticipate that that would be the final
continuation.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Okay. so we
have would you like to say anything before
verizon introduces who is here?
MR. SOLOMON: Very briefly, madam
chair. Just one follow up to Pete's comments.
The manager with the assistance of his
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
5
1
2
3
4
5
committee has brought this process forward and
there are some compromises that the town tries
to make on this process in order to provide to
allow verizon to provide a competitor for cable
service. Now if in that, if that process does
Page 4
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
6
not succeed, then at one point and I believe
7
that's going to be the 25th of this month where
8
the hearing will be completed, the record
9
finalized, this board will have to make a
10
decision or will be making a decision with
11
respect to whether to grant the license or not
12
to grant the license. Now that decision is
13
somewhat different than the negotiation process
14
that occurs that in that negotiation process,
15
the town may and has tried to make compromises
16
in order to see if it can obtain a competitor in
17
the cable field. However, if that sort of
18,
agreement can't be reached on those substantive
19
issues, then this board will need to decide the
20
up or down based on the proposal that's in the
21
record and under the guidelines of state and to
22
some extent federal mostly, and state law
23
regulation. Therefore, with respect to that
24
decision, it may well be as you look at the
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
6
1 document, you decide that there is a number of
2 issues have not been addressed to your
3 satisfaction, even though it would have been
4 that if an agreement was reached, you might have
5 compromised some of those issues. so, I.want to
6 keep separate the idea that yes, there are
7 compromises being made.
Page 5'
0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
some of these issues are being
discussed here today but that doesn't mean that
if you're formally deciding whether to grant or
deny when an agreement has not been reached,
that you may not look at those issues and make a
determination one way or the other as to whether
or not a license is deserved.by verizon.
So, keeping those two issues separate,
I think we're here today to hear from Verizon,
ask them questions about any issues you have
questions about, and then prepare for the final
day of the hearing and your determination on
that day of hearing.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Can I just ask
how many times have you met since we were with
you last?
MR. SOLOMON: We didn't meet in
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
person. we had two, I had some telephone
conversations with the representatives. we had
a conference call this past week with the.
manager, myself, Paul Trane who's a
representative of verizon, and Tom Antonucci,
counsel for verizon and Peter Bowman was also in
on the conversation. we had, I think, a good
substantive discussion of the issues that we're
discussing here today but we have not yet
Page 6
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
reached an agreement on those issues. At least
as of that date.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: How many issues
are we down to?
MR. SOLOMON: Again, for purposes of
prioritizing, there are three issues that are
being discussed here today. As mentioned, the
definition of cable system was a large paradigm
issue as we call it and then the issues brought
up by this board, the provision of cable service
to businesses, and the timing of the provisions
of cable service throughout your community.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Right.
MR. SOLOMON: Again, that's not to say
that when you have to make a difficult decision
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
with respect to the proposal that's before you,
you might not look and determine that the form
of proposal is lacking when you have to judge it
on an up or down boat but for purposes of
negotiations, we're focusing at this time on the
three major issues because we believe if we can
address these three major issues, we're hopeful
that all the other issues will fall into place.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: okay. And when
is the period up for negotiation?
MR. SOLOMON:. Well, there's a state
Page 7
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
regulation that may or may not apply which takes
you 12 months from the initiation of the process
which I believe is February 3 but I would have
to double check the dates.
I take it the initiation of the
process is your letter to the cable division and
I think that's a February 3 date. The date
could always be extended by requesting a waiver
from the cable division. It's not clear whether
the cable division believes that date applies in
the scenario we're in. There's some questions
folks have as to whether that date applies when
you initiate the process of the Board of
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
selectmen which is what happened here as opposed
to when the process is initiated by a petition
from a third party or a cable company. so
there's some question about that 12 months.
However, the manager has stated, and
this is your decision as the board, that this
board has many issues you're dealing with,
including issues as basic to life as water, and
that the board he feels would want to make its
decision on the fairly shortly and one date
we looked at for that was Wednesday, January 25,
I believe, as a date for the continued hearing
and then most likely your decision but again,
Page 8
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
that's your determination.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Well, I just
want to state up front that I think we need to
know when the end date is. we need to know what
the issues are outstanding and we either decide
we can agree or don't agree but we don't want to
keep having continued hearings. so, I'm hoping
that tonight we establish what the ground rules
are going to be for moving forward because I
don't think any of us want to keep coming back
to continued hearing. we all know what the lay
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
of the land is so I think we just have to...
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: The sense was
whatever the date of continuation next is, that
that will be the end of the hearing process,
basically. we recommend that be the end.
Verizon has indicated that this gives them
enough time to address the things that they need
to address.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: And I assume
we're on the same page as to when expiration of
the one year is or not. I think we need to know
this. If we're on the same page or not, we need
to get on the same page is, I guess, what we're
saying.
MR. TRANS: Madam chairperson, my name
Page 9
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9,VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
is Paul Trane representing verizon.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Paul, before you
speak, I didn't introduce gill Solomon. For
people in the audience, he's the town attorney
on this case, hired by the town so that's gill
Solomon.
Paul, go ahead.
MR. TRANE: Conversations with the
manager and Mr. Solomon relative to the 12-month
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
rule there is as gill noted some ambiguity of
when the division, the cable division would look
at when the process started. I think both sides
have noted if it's in our mutual interest to
extend, we would jointly seek a waiver from the
division.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: All right,
that's fine. Paul, do you want to introduce
your whole crew up?
MR. TRANE: We have a few people here.
This is Peter Bowman from state government
affairs group; Marie Lasota from verizon Legal,
Tom Antonucci who you folks have met at the last
hearing; Eric Edgington, also from verizon
legal, and John Harrington, also from our firm.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: What does John
do?
Page 10
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
MR. TRANE: John is a negotiator at
our firm as well. There are.other folks as
well, Andrea Dudley, Mary Rafferty from various
facets of the Verizon FIOS FTTP Project.
Madam chairperson, I would just as
Bill noted, there are really three issues that
we came to talk about tonight. The cable system
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
definition issue is one. That is important to
Verizon and one that we continue to talk about
with the manager and Mr. Solomon to try to meet
some of their needs as they see it. we believe
the definition provides sufficient coverage for
the town, although Bill and I and Tom and the
manager have spoken about other ways to maybe
meet some of their concerns and we continue to
talk about and we'll continue to do so in the
days ahead.
AS it relates to the cable service for
businesses and cable services as a whole to
Reading, what we took away from the last meeting
and the last hearing was that you we wanted
to provide more definition of how that build out
is occurring in Reading and when the community
as a whole will be served. The person who took
charge of that from our last meeting is Peter
Bowman, so, if I could ask Peter to come up and
Page 11
0
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
talk to those two,specific issues of the
businesses and the build out, I would appreciate
that.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Sure.
MR. BOWMAN: Thanks Paul.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Unless you want
to see the cafeteria menu, I think it's
disruptive. I won't say it's more interesting,
Peter.
MR. BOWMAN: I won't be insulted.
Thank you, madam chair, and fellow members of
the board.
You know, we echo your concerns and we
just can't thank you enough for the time you
have spent on this and Peter has and Attorney
Solomon. So, we are on the same page with you
that we're really trying to get a franchise and
license here in the town of Reading. I just
really once again as I did the last time we were
here, just thank you for your professionalism
and willingness to work with us on this. And
really, we as you, are just trying to ensure the
best possible competition and additional
services here in the town of Reading for both
businesses and residents and as Paul said,
that's mainly what I wanted to focus on.
Page 12
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
22 clearly we have made a multimillion
23 dollar investment here in Reading to build out
24 our fiber network. I think I just would take a
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
14
1
couple of minutes, if I could, just to expand on
2
how we did that and then hopefully in that
3
process, to build more comfort around what we
4
have done and your ultimate support on our
5
agreement.
6
what we have done is built the
7
fiber-to-prem network. That's what we call it.
8
what that is to take fiber and bring it
9
throughout your community and bring it right to
10
the premises so it's not fiber to a node, or
11
anything like that; it's fiber to the premises.
12
Clearly this networking carries video, voice and
13
data for the residents and businesses of
14
Reading. What we are trying to do here is
15
introduce competitive services and competitive
16
pricing.
17
Today in the telecommunications
18
industry, it's just unparalleled competition of
19
companies and unprecedented competition of
20
services. we view this infrastructure that we
21
have invested here in Reading is an economic
22
development. It's an economic engine for the
23
town. It's a next generation network. It
Page 13
0
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
improves reliability of services.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Like I said, whether it's cable or
video, voice data so just also gives you a much
more reliable network and it satisfies the need
for speed that end users want more and more of
that. It's a historic upgrade for us to be
moving away from our copper-based network to our
private-based network to a totally fiber-based
network which is really what exists now here in
Reading and it's a direct connection to the
premises, as I said. It has capacities up to
100 megabits.
I want to take this opportunity now to
address you two specific questions'as Paul said
and we took away from the meeting was really
where we are in the actual build. we overlaid
our existing network with fiber so we came out
of our central office. If we're in an aerial
situation, we overlaid that network entirely
with fiber. If we're in buried areas like
downtown, I'll get into that a little bit more,
and then also the residential buried
developments, I'll talk about also a little bit
more. But where it's aerial, we went out and
did that.
Page 14
0
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
so, if you look at the town from a
geographical perspective, we have fiber in 96
percent of the town today. where it's
throughout the community today, 96 percent on a
geographical basis with really the four percent
that isn't covered there are the buried
developments. so the residential buried
developments. And in those cases, we are going
past those developments. we're just not going
down the streets because we would need to be
underground to make that happen or go through
existing conduit or direct buried or whatever
but I'm not sure that the last time we were here
that that came out clearly: That the network is
throughout the entire community today. so it
isn't it's going by the buried developments
and it's also going by multidwelling units so
condominium complexes, apartment complexes. As
a matter of fact, we have actually put the
network into some of the multidwelling units
already. So Summit Towers, Peter Sanborn Place,
Frank Tanner Place, we have actually gone into
those, negotiated with the property owners,
gotten in and deployed our network up into the
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
Page 15
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
17
0
1
buildings so that we can offer services there.
2
Other negotiations with property
3
owners are underway and it is our commitment to
4
the board that throughout 2006, we will get to
5
all property owners and try to gain access and
6
negotiate access to those buildings. clearly,
7
we want to get into those buildings to provide
8
services.
9
similar local businesses that are
10
aerial today, we're passing those businesses so
11
we're buying out of those businesses and we can
12
offer those services to most of them. Marie's
13
throwing things at me.
14
MS. LASOTA: It was an accident.
15
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY:. Did he say
16
something wrong?
17
MS. LASOTA: No.
18
MR. BOWMAN: it must have been a hint.
19
So we have services. The downtown
20
area, for example, we have run our fiber to the
21
prem, our fiber through the downtown area
22
through the existing conduit system. so
23
currently fiber to the prem is in downtown.
24
we do need to, and Peter has pointed
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
18
Page 16
3AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
out on several occasions in different
discussions, that you have a project of redoing
the downtown area starting in the spring. So
our conduit, our fiber is already in that
conduit. It has not been carried necessarily
through all the laterals into the buildings. we
would view that a lot of that kind of as an MDU,
multiple, I know it's mixed use, business. we
still need to get access into some of the
buildings by talking to landlords. What I
assured Peter is in that process of when you're
doing your project, we will make sure we have
all our lateral connections from our main line
conduit clear. If those need to be replaced
we'll do that as part of the process to ensure
that we don't have to come back and dig up your
streets.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: That's what I
was going to ask you. when you go into a
building, do you have to go under the sidewalk?
You must go through the street and under the
sidewalk or do you rip up the sidewalk?
MR. BOWMAN: Generally, hopefully,
what we did is we ran the fiber through the
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
19
1
existing conduit system and then we would go
Page 17
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
through existing laterals to get to the
buildings like you said, a piece of conduit
going under a sidewalk but what we will do
during your project is make sure that all of our
laterals are in fact clear. If they need to be
replaced, we'll replace them while you're doing
your project so that obviously we don't need to
come back and dig up your streets.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: No, we wouldn't
let you come back.
MR. BOWMAN: I don't think so. So we
view in kind of in summary that's unprecedented
access to our services on day one. so, if we're
successful enough, we're successful. with you to
negotiate a license, that we would be able to
really, like I said, unprecedent deployment of
our video services on day one and really our
business is prepared to offer video services
very soon after an agreement is reached here.
selectmen Tafoya, I know a couple of
your phone numbers at your residence didn't show
that you were ready for fiber. The primer went
back. we verified that. That was a database
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
20
1 issue. But you said the lines are out, the
2 fiber to the prem is there. we are working
3 through to make sure that everything is in the
Page 18
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
database properly., You know that there can be
some of those issues. There shouldn't be a lot
of them but there can be.
So, kind of in summary on that main
two questions you had, that's really where we
stand. so, I think, we would be open to
questions or comments.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Does anybody
wish to follow through?
Can I ask, Ben, were you going to say
something? You didn't look like you were going
to but I wasn't sure.
I want to know about Sanborn village,
the very northern those are underground
utilities, I just wonder what's the status
there? Did you look at that?
MR. BOWMAN: Specifically, is it a
residential development?
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: It's
residential.
MR. BOWMAN: What we have done is we
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
21
1
2
3
4
5
looked at all the residential developments and
looked at all the buried. we have done a lot of
the engineering work on that. Now it's really a
matter of our getting a schedule and begin the
process of doing the work. so we don't see any
Page 19
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
]AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
issues in any of the buried developments but
clearly there is work, possibly digging,
depending on what we do find.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: That was the
last section of town and it's pretty dense. Not
dense as far as they're not close together but
there's a lot of houses up there. That's my
concern.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: My guess is their
penetration would be fairly high.
MR. BOWMAN: Clearly what we could do
is work with the manager and others and try to
set up a schedule that made sense for both us
and the town to try to work through those buried
developments over the next few years.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Few years.
MR. BOWMAN: Just based on the
franchise, the license.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Ben.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MR. TAFOYA: What you're saying to us
today, Mr. Bowman, is that any resident.of the
town outside of those areas that you just
identified for us, the downtown area, and the
Sanborn village area, should be able to call
verizon tomorrow during normal business hours
and discuss with them the start-up of the FIOS
Page 20
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
8
data service?
9
MR. BOWMAN: Right. I think I would
10
be a little broader than that to say anything
11
that's a buried development, anything that's a
12
multiple dwelling unit. outside of the ones
13
that I've highlighted. some of the businesses,
14
when you go by a strip mall, we've passed that
15
mall, there's five, six, seven small businesses
16
in there. it might be a case like in your
17
situation on a residential, the database might
18
not reflect that there's service there yet
19
because it is hard sometimes when you go by a
20
multidwelling unit or multiple business dwelling
21
unit to identify each individual business that's
22
in there but what I really wanted to stress to
23
the board tonight was the fact that we are 96
24
percent aerial going past all of these, in the
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
23
1 downtown going underground so throughout 2006,
2 it's clearly our goal to be getting all of those
3 businesses into the database, working with
4 property owners to negotiate access, if
5 necessary, and just to advance our penetration
6 of our network clearly. Does that answer the
7 question?
8 MR. TAFOYA: okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Anybody else
Page 21
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
]AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
have any questions?
MR. SOLOMON: I would like to go
ahead.
MR. SCHUBERT: I guess maybe is there
an update on where you stand on the definition
of cable system? Is that what you're going to
talk about?
MR. SOLOMON: I was going to just get
back to the issue of businesses and residential
areas. There's really, there's sort of two
separate paths you have to think about. one is
for us practically what is verizon telling you.
in other words, what are they saying they will
be doing and what are they saying explicitly or
implicitly, not to be misleading, but implicitly
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
won't be done.
secondly, a question Pete has asked
which is well, if they don't do something, can
this license say to the company, well, you have
to do it. Now, with respect to and then also
with respect to what they plan on doing, how
does that get codified in a document? Is it
enough to say you have heard from verizon today,
you understand what's going to be done and
what's not going to be done or do you need
further codification by either having explicit
Page 22
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
12
language in the franchise or by having some sort
13
of attachment?
14
Let's take one issue at a time. Let's
15
take the issue of businesses. The proposal of
16
verizon states as you stated at the last meeting
17
by secretary Tafoya that they may provide
18
service to businesses. May make cable service
19
available to business. so that if at one point
20
you have businesses who say, hey, I don't have
21
cable service, can the board do something about
22
that other than asking verizon is not an
23
enforceable provision in the document. with
24
respect to the provisions of cable service, more
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
25
1
often than not it's not particularly in
2
eastern Massachusetts it's not that there are
3
large areas that don't have cable service. It's
4
that you'll have a few places where towns for
5
years will be trying to get three homes or four
6
businesses service. Albeit it's in a
7
competitive world, there's maybe a likelihood
8
they can get it from another provider but you
9
also have to keep in mind when your other
10
provider comes up, they might have said we want
11
the same ability to figure out if we're going to
12
be rebuilding where we go and where we don't go.
13
so, taking it one issue at a time, the question
Page 23
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
14 becomes is there something on the record, and if
15 there is, does it have to be codified to give
16 this board a comfort level that the concern
17 expressed by the, some selectmen that businesses
18 be provided cable service will become a reality.
19 so let me ask that at this point, because if you
20 ask, as your attorney, I can't say the license
21 requires it. It says they may make it available
22 to commercial establishments. So that means
23 that based on what we're hearing today, that
24 there are some places, for instance, if there is
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
26
1
not residential density of ten or 15 homes per
2
mile and a business happens to be there, well,
3
they won't get that service or since it says may
4
there may be other reasons. Technical reasons
5
or business reasons why the company doesn't
6
provide that.
7
Now I'm not suggesting that what the
8
company is stating here is satisfactory or not
9
satisfactory. I'm merely raising to you have
10
you what have you heard and is it
11
satisfactory given the fact that there's not a
12
requirement that all businesses must be provided
13
cable service.
14
MR. TRANE: Madam chairperson, if I
15
could just respond to Bill's comments.
Page 24
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
First off, it's Verizon intention to
serve everybody, that's why they are getting
into the competitive marketplace to do. The
more customers the better.
And I would also point out that level
playing field language which exists in your
current agreement works both ways. There is
nothing in your incumbent agreement that
requires the incumbent to provide services to
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the business. we intend to do that. we have
already stated we have built out 96 percent of
the plant in Reading but it's an issue of
fairness to us as well.
MR. SOLOMON: with respect to the
level playing field, I concur that your current
license, unlike most licenses that I've viewed,
does not provide for that. That doesn't mean,
of course, in three years your position with
comcast might not be you need to provide cable
service to all businesses. Albeit even under
your current license, if you have a residential
density requirement and you have a business
that's not in an area that has residences, you
would not be covered. so, again, I'm not
suggesting what the company is proposing is
adequate or inadequate for you. That's really
Page 25
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
your decision.
what I want to bring to your attention
is do you clearly understand what's being stated
and I think what is being stated is that the
company can choose for business reasons or
technical reasons not to serve some of your
businesses and the proposal would not allow you
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
to require them to serve those businesses. The
question is in reality, is that a problem or
have they given you a reasonable or satisfactory
level of comfort that you know what will be done
or not be done? when it comes again to the
difficult area, the difficult building of a
difficult business, it's not a question that the
company is in the business of providing.a
service, they are, but what in reality it comes
down to is if it's going to cost a certain
number of dollars to provide the service, the
company makes a business decision, hey, we just
can't do it and the towns might have a different
perspective.
Again, I leave it to you. I'm really
not trying to suggest it's inadequate, I'm
leaving that to you. understand if you don't
understand at the moment, ask further questions
and also the other question becomes is there a
Page 26
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
20 way to codify what's been expressed at this
21 hearing as an attachment to the franchise so we
22 have some sort of representation in writing as
23 part of the license as to what has been done and
24 what that means.
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
29
1
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Would that have
2
any teeth in court?
3
MR. SOLOMON: Well, it would, it would
4
depend what it says. You know your town
5
geography better than I do. I think what's been
6
stated is clearer to you than it is to me
7
because I'm less familiar with your geography.
8
MR. TAFOYA: Peter, do we have any
9
areas in town that Comcast hasn't been serving
10
that we have had a problem with them to try and
11
get service for?
12
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: There are two
13
properties I know of that are problematic. one
14
is the parsonage at old South right across the
15
street, and it's because it's an underground
16
service and you're not digging up the streets.
17
And the other is, interestingly, the house
18
that's next to the central fire station. Again,
19
the same issue, that their service doesn't
20
really come off the front, it comes in off the
21
back. Comcast has expressed a willingness to
Page 27
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
22 serve either one but at a significant cost.
23 so beyond that I'm not aware of any.
24 I'm sure during the last 19 years, I probably
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
30
1
would have heard something.
2
MR. TAFOYA: I would feel much more
3
comfortable with the agreement if the if sort
4
of the tentative schedule that was laid out by
5
Mr. Bowman was incorporated in it with a little
6
bit more specificity because the agreement as it
7
was presented to us originally, again said three
8
years for residential customers and, you know,
9
we have come to understand now that there's
10
differences among residential customers
11
depending on whether your services are provided
12
through aerial or underground and, you know, I
13
think we could afford the extra paragraph or two
14
to delineate that difference and to lay out a
15
specific schedule that reflected the commitment
16
that Comcast has made verbally which is that for
17
aerial service, we're not talking about multiple
18
dwelling units where they have to get special
19
permission for service, that there be one
20
schedule and there might be another one for the
21
underground serviced areas and another one for
22
the multiple dwelling units, depending on how
23
those discussions went with the appropriate
Page 28
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
0
24
people.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
31
1
MR. TRANE: If I could, Madam
2
chairperson, keep in mind what Verizon is
3
building here is an FTTP network under Title 2.
4
It's not a cable system. We are asking you to
5
provide a license to provide cable service so
6
the construction issues is separate and
7
distinct, that's one.
8
Two, if verizon was a cable company in
9
their traditional sense, they would be coming to
10
you asking for a license and then taking up to
11
six years to provide service. What we're saying
12
is we built out 96 percent of the community on
13
day one and we will come back to the board over
14
a three-year period to get permits as required
15
through the process or the DPW to get permits to
16
build out that schedule. And that three years
17
sounds like a long time but half of what we
18
could do under the law, half as sill noted there
19
were compromises, half of what we started with
20
in the beginning. And, secondly, we're in
21
Massachusetts. There are more moratoriums to
22
build in tough conditions between generally
23
November and March. so, there are really only
24
six or seven months a year where verizon is
Page 29
0
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
32
0
1
looking to do the underground work. so, it does
2
take time; there are permits required and we do
3
have a firm commitment in the document to serve
4
everybody in that three-year period.
5
MR. TAFOYA: The problem is, sir, it's
6
going to be a long time before this board gets
7
another opportunity to look out for the
8
interests of its residents in this kind of
9
process. we'll be going through the same sort
10
of process with Comcast sooner rather than
11
later. And, you know, one of the reasons why
12
town government has gotten involved in these
13
issues, not just in Massachusetts but in other
14
parts of the country, is to make sure that
15
service providers were coming into the towns
16
weren't, you know, cherry picking areas, if you
17
will, and to make sure that you know everyone
18
had access to the services.
19
MR. TRANE: I want to make it clear,
20
we have built out the vast majority of the
21
community already. we'll make a commitment that
22
half of what the state law requires to build
23
out, the remaining four percent, that's our
24
commitment to serve everybody. It's not in our
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
Page 30
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
33
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
business interest to do anything other than
that.
what we're doing is recognizing the
reality that underground requires permits,
consultation with the manager, the DPW, and in
some cases, your board to do that. That's a
timely process, it takes time. And to do that
we think three years was fair. we originally
asked for much more but we have worked with
Peter and Bill to come up with what we think is
a fair schedule of construction. That's no
different if you require it when you get into
renewal with Comcast for them to upgrade their
facility here in Reading. I'm sure they will -
ask for a time period to do that.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: You had asked
that in the agreement that it be separated out
between the underground and the I think
that's not a bad idea.
MR. TAFOYA: It seems reasonable that
certain areas that require special effort would
be on a different time frame than that which you
have told us is being served.
You know, the problems, sir, really is
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
34
Page 31
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
that we have no way of verifying what you say.
I'm a little tech savvy and I can look up at the
equipment that's running through town and I can
look at what's there today and what was there a
year ago. But, again, I don't know what works,
what doesn't work.
MR. TRANE: Keep in mind, as I noted
earlier, Verizon is building a network that
provides primarily voice and data and to do
that, they have the existing authority to do
that in the town and obviously subject to
construction requirements in the town to do that
and to build out at its own time frame to do
that. That's what they have undertaken to do.
what we're simply asking for is the
ability to provide cable service in addition to
that construction. what we're doing is really
forcing our own hand to meet a three-year
requirement and to further that point, there are
18 competitive licenses that have been
negotiated in the commonwealth of Massachusetts
with another provider. All of those without
exception provide three to four years for that
company to build out their system. so it's
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
35
1 consistent with past practice here in
2 Massachusetts and elsewhere. In that case, it's
Page 32
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
four years for the entire community. we're
talking about three years to build out difficult
to build areas within the town.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: I think the
board's point though probably is that they
didn't start out with 96 percent of the town
covered so why does it take up to three years
for the other four percent?
MR. TAFOYA: Or anything in the case
of somebody like RCN?
MR. SOLOMON: I thought your other
point was
MR. TRANE: My point is that RCN got
three or four years to build in those
communities. The advantage, it's really a good
story, verizon shows up in Reading with 96
percent of the facilities built being that they
can provide service. There's an immediate
benefit to you approving this license. It is
that those covered by the aerial plan can get
service on day one. They don't have to wait for
the construction to happen.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
36
1
2
3
4
MR. SOLOMON: Ben, I thought your
point also was a little different that if
accepting the fact for discussion sake that it
takes verizon three years, potentially they need
Page 33
0
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
5
three years to do some underground areas. I
6
thought your point also was while there are
7
areas that are not underground that will be done
8
under verizon's articulation in less than three
9
years, shouldn't the license reference those
10
areas in a separate category than the areas that
11
can't be? In other words, let's codify what
12
verizon is saying and distinguish those that
13
will be done in less than three years aerial
14
from the underground. I think that was also,
15
that's a lesser point but maybe Verizon can
16
address that issue.
17
MR. TRANE: The only thing I would
18
add, Bill, is to the selectmen's point, we did
19
have discussions with Bill and Peter about their
20
fear and I think yours that we would be cherry
21
picking I think is the word you used. That's
22
obviously not our intention but we put that in
23
the document and we note in the document that
24
the licensee shall not discriminate between or
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
37
1 among any individuals in the availability of
2 cable service. so we have made that commitment
3 to the town in writing as part of the process of
4 negotiations with your representatives.
5 MR. TAFOYA: I think that refers to
6 people signing up.
Page 34
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
MR. TRANS: No. It says the licensee
shall make cable service available to all
residential dwelling units and make cable
service available to business within the town in
conformance with section 3.1 and the licensee
shall not discriminate between or among any
individuals in the availability of cable
service. So we have made that very clear to the
town in Reading.
MR. TAFOYA: But it obviously is a
moot point unless fiber is driven to the premise
of the people that we're discussing.
MR. TRANS: Remember, we're creating a
competitive environment where it's in our
interest to get those properties that require
undergrounding.. My guess is even the limited
amount of properties that Comcast hasn't served
in the past, they may be more interested in
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
38
1 serving them because if they don't, we will.
2 MR. SOLOMON: Let me make a language
3 suggestion. Again, to see if this reflects what
4 verizon is saying and seeing if the board would
5 like that language. The license could be as
6 simple as saying that if the board would agree
7 that three years for underground, and for those
8 areas, those dwelling units served by aerial
Page 35
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
9
plant have a different number of years. Have a
10
one year or whatever it might be. Then at least
11
it seems to quantify what's being articulated,
12
if that's the issue. There's a larger issue
13
about the three years so you have a few issues.
14
Are you happy with the three years for certain
15
underground and, secondly, if that's limited to
16
certain underground, do you want the license to
17
reflect the fact that there's a shorter period
18
of time for those homes served by aerial plants?
19
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: well, I assume
20
what could happen also is that a business
21
decision could be made saying that it's not
22
economically worthwhile to serve that area.
23
MR. TRANE: That could happen in some
24
instances as it has with the incumbent, that
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
39
I
1 they look to recoup the cost because of the
2 extraordinary costs to get to that problem.
3 what has happened as Mr. Manager noted in very
4 few instances. Again, we want to get to every
5 business and every resident because that's what
6 we're doing: Creating a competitive
7 environment.
8 CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Okay. Any other
9 questions? James Bonazoli.
10 MR. BONAZOLI: Just to that point,
Page 36
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
11
you're saying even within three years anybody
12
and everybody will have service?
13
MR. TRANS: Correct.
14
MR. BONAZOLI: So I guess our issue is
15
with the three years but difficult location or
16
not, you're saying the entire town will be
17
covered in service within three years?
18
MR. TRANE: Correct. There are
19
provisions in the license that require us to
20
build out within three years and then within
21
that as we discussed at our last hearing, there
22
are some caveats within that for density
23
requirements and other things that are
24
particular for cable license bonds.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
40
1 MR. BONAZOLI: That may go above and
2 beyond three years.
3 MR. TRANE: Correct.
4 MR. SOLOMON: That could go,
5 basically, allow the company not to build. The
6 address those the provision verizon seeks as
7 exceptions, frankly, go beyond what a
8 traditional well done cable license provides.
9 Let me just give those two provisions.
10 one is that in areas where the well, the
11 developments or buildings that the licensee
12 cannot access under reasonable terms and
Page 37
0
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
conditions after good faith negotiations as
reasonably determined by the licensee. so that
verizon seeks here, and again this is a
compromise in this process, that the town
through its agents suggested could be made but
this compromise allows verizon in its reasonable
determination, reasonable subjective
determination to say, hey, it's too expensive to
make a deal with a multifamily and we don't have
to do that.
Now, under most well done cable
licenses, that exception doesn't apply. It's
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
not an unreasonable exception but in your
license, in your existing license, there's
really no out for the cable company to say, hey,
it's too expensive to do. They have to do it.
Although they can try to. make some arguments
outside of the license, the license doesn't give
an out to the cable company.
secondly, it says in areas,
developments or buildings where the licensee is
unable to provide cable service for technical
reasons or which require nonstandard facilities
which are not available on a commercially
reasonable basis. so here verizon seeks to say
well, if there are technical reasons or if it's
Page 38
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
not standard, it's not commercially practicable,
reasonable, then they don't have to provide that
that service to your residential dwelling units.
That is not as typical of a well drafted cable
license which says you have to provide service.
You might have a density requirement like you
have now, ten or 15 homes per mile, but it
doesn't let the cable company in the license
say, decide, well, it's too technically
difficult. They have to do it.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Now there may be cases in Reading
where they haven't done it and you haven't
enforced it yet but it doesn't in the license
provide an out based on technology or based on
financial cost.
verizon sought in this license to have
those exceptions. The first exception as I
mentioned with respect to cost is as they
reasonably determine. Those are exceptions
which if they if the town agreed to and
verizon were to use would mean that there are
certain residential dwellings that might not get
serviced. in the negotiation back and forth,
your representatives determined that based on
the totality of circumstances, the reality that
these folks wanted to do business, those were
Page 39
0
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
exceptions that the town could would be
recommended that the town could live with i.f
other aspects of build out were met.
At the end of the day, we need not
discuss it here if you don't like, that's a
decision you're going to make. Those exceptions
are broader than you typically see in a cable
franchise. in fact, broader than in your cable
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
franchise because those outs don't exist under
your existing franchise.
MR. TRANS: The only thing I would
add, Bill, one, you used the well-drafted cable
license and as the manager knows, there are
properties that aren't being serviced now by the
incumbent that exist. we are clarifying the
specific examples that if we couldn't provide
service, what they would be.
secondly, everything that the cable
company committed to in its current license was
done in the monopoly setting where the resident
had no choice. They either pay the money for
the difficult situation or not get cable
service. we're providing competition we think
that will change the marketplace. It's
important to look at the context and the current
license.
Page 40
0
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: okay. Any other
questions?
MR. SCHUBERT: I have a question on
the same subject. Peter, with the properties
just north of the common, is the street scape
project, is that going to provide opportunities?
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
That's probably not going to come close enough
to connect to do some of the underground work.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: No.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: So those houses
could go to satellite, right?
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Yes. The issue
with the property next to the fire station is
that it exceeds the distance requirements which
I think is 150 feet from the existing license.
You come up Salem Street up the alleyway in back
to come to the house exceeds that. It's not
that they can't get service, they would have to
pay installation cost. I believe it's the same
issue with the parsonage, although there's
conduit but it's in the street. You can't gut
the street to do it.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Is there any
other questions that need to be asked on the
outstanding issues that we are going to discuss
tonight?
Page 41
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
21 MR. SCHUBERT: Do we want to talk
22 about separating the two different timeframes?
23 The three years, maybe, where some of the
24 underground things would be hard to get to
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
45
1 versus any of the properties receiving aerial -
2 service,that receive aerial service? I think
3 it's worth talking about.
4 MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Can I play back
5 to particularly Peter Bowman, I think from
6 verizon, so I understand what the commitment is?
7 That by the end of 2006, you will have
8 approached all MDU, multidwelling unit locations
9 in terms of getting installation. That doesn't
10 mean you necessarily accomplish it but you will
11 have approached them?
12 MR. BOWMAN: Correct.
13 MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: What is a similar
14 kind of situation with regard to the underground
15 in terms of timing or schedule?
16 MR. TRANE: I can take that. We have
17 negotiated, we have six years under the law. we
18 have negotiated with you for three years and we
19 will, as we noted at the last hearing, work with
20 you, Peter, to come back on a reasonable
21 schedule. If we can do it quicker, we will but
22 we need to get other engineering folks in to
Page 42
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
23 look at the specific issues at each location.
24 So our commitment is to try to do it as quickly
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
46
1
as possible but the document does say we have up
2
to three years to do it. I think we could work
3
with you off-line to develop a schedule that I
4
think would be appropriate but I would point out
5
that again, that Verizon's building this network
6
under an existing authority under Title 2 of the
7
building and it's beyond the Board's scope to
8
regulate the construction of the FTTP network.
9
However, that being said, we do need underground
10
permits and typical permits that are required in
11
the commonwealth and I think we can work with
12
Peter to come up with the schedule that the
13
board would find satisfying.
14
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: How long is it
15
going to take to do the underground? As far as
16
what you say a twelve-month construction period
17
or what.
18
MR. TRANS: Each area that has some
19
undergrounding issues is different. Again, with
20
the winter months here in Massachusetts, it
21
becomes more tricky issue but, again, we have
22
three years that we've asked for in the license
23
to build out the entire community as it relates
24
to cable service but even absent that cable
Page 43
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
1
license, we would be looking to do these
2
undergrounding issues for the provisions of data
3
and voice services.
4
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: The other thing,
5
just to make it clear with the board, not all
6
the underground areas are in the same location.
7
For example, off Rustic Lane, you have a
8
relatively new development that's got maybe a
9
dozen or dozen and-a-half houses. You have that
10
around the community. Autumn Lane off Wakefield
11
Street, just go all around where new
12
developments have been. The lower Sanborn area
13
is the largest single area.
14
MR. TRANS: I think what we committed
15
to is we would work with the manager through the
16
last meeting to get our engineering folks
17
together with the town's DPW folks and kind of
18
map out the process of where these areas are,
19
and how long it's actually going to take us. I
20
think that's what we're committed to do.
21
I think in the next couple of weeks,
22
we'll do that. we haven't had a chance with the
23
holidays to really get down to that level but we
24
will with Peter in the next couple of weeks.
47
Page 44
]AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: okay. Can I
just ask you to review the customer service
provisions of the, of what I know you're in
negotiations so how do I put this? I want to
know how customer service is going to work.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: For the customer
service standards.
MR. TRANS: There are specific
customer service standards we have negotiated
with Peter and Bill that are a part of our
document. I don't know if you want to
paraphrase how you see them.
MR. SOLOMON: I don't think we have
come to an agreement on that. In part, recently
we decided on the town side until we get these
other issues resolved, at least on the terms of
spending your taxpayers dollars, we have tried
not to. I think maybe the best way to address
it is to have Paul discuss the major customer
service issues, how verizon will serve your
subscribers and then I think it would be helpful
if Paul could describe in what ways that service
differs from existing federal regulations. I
think it would be helpful for you to understand
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
Page 45
49
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that. To be fair to verizon that their view to
some extent is in the competitive world. People
can make decisions on who to use as a provider
based upon customer service and that there's
less need for regulation, that's to some extent
true but obviously that's the difference between
someone on the one side of the spectrum and
someone on the other side in terms of how they
view government regulations.
I think it would be helpful for Paul
to explain how they're serving the subscribers,
how do you get equipment and who do you bring it
to and who do you get a call. secondly, discuss
a little bit what the differences are between
that and federal regulation so that you can
understand what it is that verizon is doing
differently than existing federal regulations.
That federal regulation only applies if the town
takes certain steps, in probably another day;
but I think that would give you a sense of what
they do and how it differs from theory.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I also think we
are going to hear about is if repair time, like
I told you, they told me my phone would be out
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
50
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a
1
2
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
three days, I might see somebody from Verizon
for my telephone. I'm really interested in, I
put a call in because my cable, my cable isn't
working, what is your expected response?
MR. TRANS: As I noted in Exhibit B of
the agreement, there's customer service
standards that we have negotiated with Peter and
Bill. And all of those meet the requirements of
the mass. regulations regarding customer
service, so we're going to meet those. In other
cases, we exceed them. There are very lengthy.
If you would like to, I could try to summarize.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Tell me, my
cable is out, what are you saying to Reading
residents when will you get out to try to fix
the cable in Reading? I assume Verizon
telephone is meeting mass. standards, too, but
it doesn't meet my standard as a telephone
customer.
MR. TRANS: There are no federal
regulations in responding to a subscriber
complaint. They are driven by the Massachusetts
regs. That's what we have put forth in here,
that we have 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
51
to handle those situations. our commitment is
to provide the best possible customer service to
Page 47
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
every resident.
Again, keep in mind it's a competitive
service. so that people have the ability for
the first time in Reading to hang up on Comcast
or on verizon and go to one other service if
they don't provide the proper level of service.
That's what these regulations or these exhibits
of customer service standards we put into the
license indicate. we understand it's a
competitive environment. We want to win in the
marketplace.
You don't win through this license;
you win in the marketplace by providing the
service that people want. That's what we're
looking to do here. Get the opportunity first
to approve the license and secondly, win-by the
customer service and.the type of service in
general that we will provide to the community.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: So your answer
to me, to cut to the chase is you have in 24
hours someone should be out to take a look at
why the cable is not working?
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
52
1
2
3
4
MR. TRANS: In most cases, we have
24-seven, 365 days a week customer service
availability in Reading and every other
community in Massachusetts when we get there.
Page 48
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
5
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I think this is
6
very indicative of why competition is so
7
important and why Verizon telephone needs more
8
competition. I'm very serious. There aren't
9
places to go anymore.
10
MR. TRANE: Again, competition works.
11
if you remember the first thing I started out
12
with at the last hearing was that rates
13
stabilized, the customer service improved.
14
That's the conclusion of what happens in the
15
competitive marketplace and we, I think, Verizon
16
as a whole has probably improved on the
17
telephony and data side based on the fact they
18
are now in the competitive marketplace.
19
Hopefully, we'll do the same for comcast and
20
they'll make us better.
21
Eric is pointing out that some of the
22
provisions that we have in the customer
23
standards exceeds the federal requirements that
24
the incumbent is under now.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
0
53
1 MR. SOLOMON: With respect to service,
2 maybe Paul can address when someone seeks to
3 have service, how long will that take and in
4 different scenarios? That's one of the things
5 that was somewhat different than traditional
6 because of their technology, it might be helpful
Page 49
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
for us to understand that.
MR. TRANE: Again, we're trying to
provide customer service in a competitive
environment that meets or exceeds what's out
there. That's our intention. Again, there are
a number of provisions there. There's nine
pages of provisions of customer service that we
would be more than glad to summarize to the
board in a one-page document prior to the next
hearing.
There are a litany of things we are
committed to do that you wouldn't find in the
current agreement, that we're committed to do to
show that we're here as a second entrant,
realizing that we have to do better than the
incumbent in order to gain customers. That is
what our intention is by providing this as part
of the document. we continue to discuss those
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
issues with gill and Peter.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: We didn't get
into the difference between federal and I know
you had mentioned that, gill.
MR. SOLOMON: Again, the only reason
is I believe it's important, the issues come up,
that we have full disclosure. My understanding
is that sometimes'I don't focus on customer
Page 50
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
9
service. The federal regulations require if you
10
request service, the company has seven days to
11
provide service. I believe Verizon because of
12
its technology has a different approach to that.
13
I thought that would be a good example to ask
14
Verizon how their approach is different from
15
that seven-day service provisions so we can
16
understand that, as an example. Because there
17
were some differences from what traditional
18
standards but as stated by Verizon, there are
19
other areas where they seek to exceed
20
traditional standards but that was one area I
21
know that stood out. Maybe they can address
22
under federal regulation the extent to which
23
it's applicable which I won't get into here,
24
that the company has seven days to provide
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
55
1 service if someone requested, what will Verizon
2 be doing on that?
3 CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Are you talking
4 about new service or are you talking repair?
5 MR-. SOLOMON: New service.
6 MR. TRANS: We're committed to provide
7 seven.days, within seven days of installation of
8 the ONT box at the premise to provide service.
9 MR. SOLOMON: Again, it doesn't have
10 to be high on the food chain. Just that the
Page 51
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
issue becomes when that box is there, part of
the question is when the box is there or not. I
think what will be helpful to the board to make
it simple is if Verizon would prepare as
discussed on the one-page summary how it's
proposed customer service standards differ from
the federal standards on the code of federal
regulations. I think that would make it they
spent a lot time.
in fact, Attorney Antonucci, one of
his subspecialties is customer service. since
he was put in charge of that, it would be
helpful to have the side-by-side comparison of
where the proposed regulations are different
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
from the existing federal regulations. Again,
those federal regulations don't apply here in
Reading at the moment. That's not the issue
but so you know that.
My only desire as your counsel is that
you know these things before you vote so then
later on if a question comes up, you don't
wonder how come we didn't know there was a
difference here. we didn't know what the issue
was. Again, compromises will probably be made
in these cases that meet the town's need. I
think it's important that you know the
Page 52
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
13
compromises that you are making since you have
14
asked these questions.
15
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: What you're
16
basically saying is you wouldn't really be
17
worried about changes from the federal, if it
18
were in the town's favor.
19
MR. SOLOMON: No, in both ways. As
20
long as you know what those are, then I think
21
you can make an informed decision that those
22
differences are acceptable. And I think in many
23
cases, I think you will conclude that but I just
24
want to make sure you know what those
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
57
1
differences are so you
can make
an informed
2
decision.
3
CHAIRPERSON
ANTHONY:
Okay. So do you
4
know what he wants?
5
MR. TRANS:
Yes, I do.
6
CHAIRPERSON
ANTHONY:
Good. It seems
7
like you have already
done it.
8
MR. TRANE:
That's fine, we have
9
discussed it at length.
10
CHAIRPERSON
ANTHONY:
Pardon.
11
MR. TRANE:
We have di
scussed with
12
Peter and Bill at length.
13
CHAIRPERSON
ANTHONY:
Rick, you had
14
something?
Page
53
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
MR. SCHUBERT: The other one of the
three issues. Still I understand still being
worked on, the definition of cable systems. Has
there been any change or any progress on that
since the last time we met? Have you had time
to further that discussion?
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: We have had
further discussion. I think the from our
perspective, the ball is sort of in Verizon's
corporate court, if you will. There's some
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
broad, corporate issues that they have to deal
with to address that issue. Again, the
definition issue is the definition of cable
system. And the town's position is we just want
reference to the federal law period, end of
story. Verizon has proposed some modification
to that, much less modification than they
initially proposed but we have negotiated away
from that and it is significant for several
reasons.
Cable system is referenced throughout
the document and the one that keeps popping in
my mind is the gross revenue is based on cable
service over the cable system. so if the cable
system definition is not tight then the whole
definition of gross revenue can go away and
Page 54
0
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
that's important to peg access because that's
how we determine how much is the access.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: So do you call
it something other than a cable system?
MR. TRANE: No. In fact, it's
important to point out that your current
franchise doesn't reference the federal
definition at all. so as Peter has mentioned,
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
we have asked for the federal definition that
also recognizes the distinction that verizon is
a Title 2 provider and has built the facilities
under Title 2 and separates those Title 2 issues
and the information services out from the
definition of cable system. I think if Pete is
concerned is one surrounding gross revenue, I
think there are ways that we can work with him
over the next few weeks to potentially address
this outside of the cable definition issue. .
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Again, there are
other places where it's referenced. I'm just
using the gross revenue.
MR. SOLOMON: To give a very brief
review of the issue. Based on long discussions
with Verizon where the town, and I know this is
true for other communities, too, that are
represented throughout the country, have tried
Page 55
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
19 to negotiate language in the franchise that as I
20 said last time, makes it clear that we will
21 accept for purposes of the agreement the concept
22 that they're in the right of way because they're
23 a telephone company under Title 2 of the
24 communication act, which as I mentioned the last
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
60
1
time, was rejected in New York where the
2
commission said, You've got a cable license,
3
you're a cable company, you're under the cable
4
laws, the other stuff doesn't matter. The town
5
for purposes of negotiation to date continues to
6
accept even post the New York decision, the view
7
of the world Verizon suggests that their
8
infrastructure is there because of Title 2 and
9
the telephone system and you're not to touch it
10
because of through your cable license but the
11
term cable system is important because in trying
12
to word this in many different ways to give
13
comfort to Verizon, that we're not trying by
14
using the federal definition to regulate their
15
infrastructure. we are unable to do that and
16
others are unable to do that. Really what that
17
means, because I believe it's important to be
18
frank in the discussion, is that Verizon seeks
19
to have a definition of cable system that tries
20
to shape the future when, for instance, cable is
Page 56
0
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
done through what's called Internet protocol.
And, therefore, seeks to have a definition which
would allow them to argue when they provide
video by Internet as opposed to what the more
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
traditional cable, that this license no longer
applies.
so we believe that's a fundamental
issue. whether or not verizon within a year or
year and-a-half provides cable through Internet
protocol, whether or not that's a cable system
that's regulated by the cable act will depend on
what the law is at that point and what a court
says, but we think that should be determined at
that time and not predetermined by changing of
federal definition. I don't say that to be
critical of verizon. I just say that to say
that's a fundamental aspect that the town to be
careful not to give up the application of this
license by language.
There's a case in the west coast,
another company, walnut Creek, that's the very
issue there. It's a cable license needed. we
respect the fact and we appreciate the fact that
verizon, unlike what's now called AT&T, seeks a
cable license and we think that's great but we
want to make sure that we use terms that allow
Page 57
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
23 this issue decided in Reading, based on what
24 happens in the country. Not based on how a
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
62
1
word, a federally defined term is defined in
2
your license. so that's a large issue for the
3
town.
4
we hope that Verizon will view the cup
5
as 99 percent full because we're recognizing
6
their view of the world on Title 2 under FTTP
7
system and we hope that they'll see the federal
8
definition works for all of us. The future will
9
be what the future is but need not be decided
10
now by changing those definitions.
11
MR. TRANE: Madam chairperson, if I
12
could, two things?
13
one, Bill referenced a New York
14
decision, confirmation of a franchise that
15
verizon negotiated in Massapequa Park. What he
16
neglected to say I'm sure it's not
17
intentional is that verizon was specifically
18
in dune of 2005 given the ability to construct
19
their facilities as a noncable system as a
20
telecommunications facility as an upgrade. That
21
was an.issue that was settled in New York. That
22
goes back to some of the earlier discussions
23
we've had that verizon has the ability to build
24
their system under its existing Title 2
Page 58
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
authority. That was one that was tested in New
York. verizon was successful.
Bill mentioned some issues relative to.
cable system. I think it's really an issue of
cable service but we'll continue to talk about
these issues in the next couple of weeks.
MR. SCHUBERT: I guess just sort of a
follow up or support some of, I guess, maybe the
town's perspective again. I think that one of
the things you have to understand is that we
don't know what the future holds and, you know,
what you're bringing to the town right now, the
competitive environment which we really want to
achieve, I don't want to put us in the risk of
nothing against you personally or verizon but
all of a sudden giving verizon a competitive
advantage where all of a sudden there is no
competitor and verizon becomes the only service
provider. whether it's cable or, you know,
whatever the terminology is. I think that's a
risk that I think it's worth the town to sort of
prevent at this moment. And, right, who knows
what the future will bring as far as federal
regulations and decisions.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
Page 59
0
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
64
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
if it isn't clear in this license then
I think that we're at risk to where very quickly
we go back to a noncompetitive situation where
verizon might be the only provider. I think the
level playing field, the language, I guess the
advantage that verizon has as a telephone
company and your ability to Title 2 to put up
the wiring, the infrastructure, all those
things, I think, are important to sort of, to
achieve the competitive environment, we want to
keep the competitive environment.
MR. TRANE: Remember, the incumbent is
the largest provider of cable services in the
country. If there is a change in federal law
regarding the provision of cable service, it
would affect them and verizon. I don't think
that would be the case. I think that in any
instances, there would be two companies
providing services in the town.
Anything that happens in Washington, I
certainly don't have a crystal ball is going to
apply to all providers. so that needs to be
taken into consideration.
I think Bill and our side have a
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
65
Page 60
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
difference of opinion what verizon is trying to
do but I think we understand that the manager
and gill have some concerns about protecting the
community's interest.
we have tried to do that. Bill has
noted it's been a compromise and we have
certainly, if you look at the record from what
we submitted in August to the town to where we
are, we have compromised a great deal. some on
our side might say too much. we have
compromised a great deal to try to reach an
agreement. I think we'll continue to do that to
work with them to get.an agreement that meets
their concerns and also meets ours and we'll do
that up until the 25 of January, if that's when
the next hearing is.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I would just say
though that I think the town wants to have
verizon come in and provide service. I think
your ability to come in here is a great
advantage and I don't think we have been that
tough.
I don't know what you have gone
through in negotiation. I'm looking at it and
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
66
1
saying I don't think we are that tough. I think
Page 61
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
2
we want to have you come in and you would like
3
to come in. I do want to say from what I can
4
see, I think the board is probably very
5
supportive of the negotiations and I think you
6
ought to be aware of it.
7
MR. TRANS: Duly noted.
8
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Anything else?
9
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Just to be very
10
clear, Peter, your sense is that by the 25th
11
from a corporate perspective, the area of the
12
issue definition, you'll have a firm position so
13
that we won't look to another continuance?
14
MR. BOWMAN: I think I have to defer
15
to Paul'.
16
MR. TRANS: We have a firm position.
17
It's the one in front of you and that's our
18
position.
19
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: What I would
20
say, there is no point getting back in this
21
session if.we can't come to an agreement.
22
MR. SOLOMON: Let me just suggest it
23
two ways. I think it's important for the board
24
to have a complete record. I think for our
0
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
67
1 purposes, we need a hearing for complete record.
2 Let me just again as we tried to
3 convince these good folks, if anyone can do
Page 62
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
this, it's a large company with much hierarchy,
it has to be in a large company. As I said
before, I say this seriously, we could not have
had two better representatives than Paul Trane
and Tom Antonucci backed up by Peter Bowman.
That they have made, they begin with their
document and that document as you can imagine,
the company and exceptional legal team has spent
probably a year and-a-half, two years
developing. And they worked with us to
wordsmith and brainstorm how can we meet the
goals of both parties. At any time you get to
the last issues, that's what you're discussing
but let that not get in the way of reflecting
the fact that these folks have been incredible
in trying to bridge the differences as I know
you understand. But we're down to the
difference.
Let me make one last explanation of
why this is so important to Reading. To the
extent the town through its negotiation team, at
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
68
1
2
3
4
5
least, is prepared to recommend to the board, in
the final analysis it's your decision, to accept
the reference to Title 2, the infrastructure
there is built according to that. we see the
world differently but your committee is prepared
Page 63.
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
to recommend that to you. To the extent to
limit its application of both provisions in your
license, not have a number of public works
provisions, not enforce the bylaws and
regulations you do have or might have pursuant
to this cable license. All those compromises
which your committee may likely recommend and
you accept or reject, at least have a there's
a theoretical basis why it is not as harmful to
you as it could be and that is because as
expressed by Verizon, the cable company exists
in your right-of-way because they have cable
license. These folks in your right-of-way for
their other services pursuant to their state
franchise. Therefore, to the extent that there
may be compromises you make such as the
reference to Title 2, your incumbent provider
could not say, well, then we want the same
thing. We want recognition that we're in your
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
right of way because of Title 2 or we're a
telephone company because they don't argue that.
They don't seek to be subject to Title 2 in the
federal law on the telephone system.
so that compromise has a, has a
somewhat limited effect on your incumbent
license. The definition of cable system, on the
Page 64
a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).txt
other hand, by changing that definition, there's
no .comparable unequal background. Meaning your
cable company could likely say to you we want
the same definition of cable system as you
provided to Verizon. In which case you could be
in a position where you would be required to
give your incumbent cable company the same
definition which would allow your incumbent
company to say at one point, we're no longer a
cable system either. Therefore, this license
you have with us is no longer applicable. so we
say to our friends at verizon to ask the town to
make compromises where there's distinction
between the two companies and there's some
protection for the town as residents because of
that distinction is one thing but to ask the
town to make a compromise where your existing
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
franchise could be nullified by the change of
definition is asking for more than at least your
negotiation team believes is reasonable. we ask
them to accept the cup 98 percent full and move
on so your residence can be served with the
Verizon cable.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: It sounds
reasonable to me.
MR. TRANS: Madam Chairperson, if I
Page 65
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
could just and Bill as always has articulated
the town's position. The one thing he is again
not noting to you is in the federal definition,
there's an exception for common carrier which is
what the verizon is.
MR. SOLOMON: We'll give you that
definition. In fact, the federal definition
we'll not only reference it, we'll do the whole
ten sentences. we just don't have a different
standard for Reading.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I think you have
heard the negotiating part, the town's
negotiating position and I mean you can go back
and forth and back and forth. It's not going
to after a while it gets it's just got to
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
be decided.
MR. TRANS: Agreed. As you noted;
your support of the negotiation team we have
duly noted it. I hope you note that our
position is well grounded and well supported by
our client.
we look forward to trying to get to an
agreement. we would much rather, we're here to
negotiate. That's what our intention is and,
hopefully, we'll reach an agreement.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: we certainly
Page 66
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
hope so. we would love to have Verizon
providing cable service. So let's get going
here.
MR. TRANE: That's why we're here.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: I think it's to
a point, let's just cut to the chase and get
going.
MR. TRANE: If I could Madam
chairperson, just for the record submit to the
board a copy of the transcript from the last
hearing as part of the record.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Thank YOU. Now
I can read what I said.
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
okay. January 26 25, we are going
to have a continuation of the hearing. However,
as chair I would just like to say if there is no
new information, I think we open, continue it
and move on. unless you have other things you
want to talk about.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: Our expectation
actually is that we will either have a deal or
not. if there is not a deal, then counsel will,
or counsel will need to put on the record the
issues that stand in the way.
MR. SOLOMON: Would you like to have,
authorize your manager to draft a draft decision
Page 67
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,
24
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
for that night or do you prefer to vote first
and have that done afterwards?
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: What decision?
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: I think we
usually have a draft decision for you.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Okay.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: My understanding
is verizon is in agreement by the 25th.
MR. TRANE: I think it needs to be
made clear that veriizon expects and hopes that
we'll reach an agreement but obviously there are
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
remedies beyond the board, if they seek not to
approve a franchise. Obviously, the spirit
here, I think you can tell that is to try to
reach an agreement.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Yes. James?
MR. BONAZOLI: I thought we were
actually there. I thought we were pretty clear
in our last meeting, three points. So I was
actually a little surprised that we weren't
there tonight and that we weren't notified we
weren't there tonight.
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: You had it
continued so you had to...
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Well, I think we
have talked this subject to death at this point
Page 68
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7AN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
so I think
MR. HECHENBLEIKNER: You'll get a
draft motion.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: okay. Could I
have a motion, please?
MR. SCHUBERT: Madam chairperson, this
Board of selectmen continues the hearing on the
Verizon application to January 25, 2006, at
7:00 p.m. in the police station community room,
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING.(781) 246.0710
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
15 Union Street.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: Second?
MR. TAFOYA: Second.
CHAIRPERSON ANTHONY: All those in
favor? Good night. Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)
Page 69
JAN9VERIZONHRG(1).tXt
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIDOMSKI COURT REPORTING (781) 246.0710
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX: SS
I, IRMA WIDOMSKI, a Notary Public and
Registered Professional Reporter, in and for the
commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify
that the foregoing transcript on January 9,
2006, is a true and accurate record of the
testimony taken in the aforementioned matter to
the best of my skill and ability.
Registered Professional Reporter
my commission expires January 22, 2010
Page 70