Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission file number 1-1150

VERIZON NEW ENGLAND INC.

185 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Telephone Number (617) 743-9800

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:    See attached Schedule A.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:    None.

THE REGISTRANT MEETS THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION I(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-K AND IS THEREFORE FILING THIS FORM WITH REDUCED DISCLOSURE FORMAT PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION I(2).

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes x   No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes ¨   No x

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

SCHEDULE A

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL INFORMATION IS AS OF MARCH 14, 2003.

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

PART I

Item 1. Business

              (Abbreviated pursuant to General Instruction I (2).)

GENERAL

Verizon New England Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of NYNEX Corporation (NYNEX), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon).

We presently serve a territory consisting of Local Access and Transport Areas (LATAs) in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. These LATAs are generally centered on a city or based on some other identifiable common geography.

We currently provide two basic types of telecommunications services:

As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately 15,300 employees. Approximately 85% of our employees (associates) are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Collective bargaining agreements with the unions expire in August 2003.

REGULATION

Telecommunications Act of 1996

We face increasing competition in all areas of our business. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), regulatory and judicial actions and the development of new technologies, products and services have created opportunities for alternative telecommunication service providers, many of which are subject to fewer regulatory constraints.

In-Region Long Distance

Under the 1996 Act, our ability to offer in-region long distance services (that is, services originating in the states where we operate as a local exchange carrier) is largely dependent on satisfying specified requirements. The requirements include a 14-point “competitive checklist” of steps which we must take to help competitors offer local services through resale, through purchase of unbundled network elements (UNEs), or by interconnecting their own networks to ours. We must also demonstrate to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that entry into the in-region long distance market would be in the public interest.

On April 16, 2001, February 22, 2002, April 17, 2002, June 19, 2002, and September 25, 2002, the FCC released orders approving our applications for permission to enter the in-region long distance markets in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, respectively. The U.S. Court of Appeals has remanded the Massachusetts order to the FCC for further explanation on one issue, but left our long distance authority in effect. Since April 26, 2001, March 7, 2002, April 30, 2002, July 1, 2002 and October 23, 2002 in-region long distance service is being offered in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, respectively, by a separate non-regulated subsidiary of Verizon as required by law.

1

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

FCC Regulation and Interstate Rates

We are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC with respect to interstate services and related matters. In 2002, the FCC continued to implement reforms to the interstate access charge system and to implement the “universal service” and other requirements of the 1996 Act.

Access Charges and Universal Service

On May 31, 2000, the FCC adopted the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Services (CALLS) plan as a comprehensive five-year plan for regulation of interstate access charges. The CALLS plan has three main components. First, it establishes a portable interstate access universal service support of $650 million for the industry. This explicit support replaces implicit support embedded in interstate access charges. Second, the plan simplifies the patchwork of common line charges into one subscriber line charge (SLC) and provides for de-averaging of the SLC by zones and class of customers in a manner that will not undermine comparable and affordable universal service. Third, the plan sets into place a mechanism to transition to a set target of $0.0055 per minute for switched access services. Once that target rate is reached, local exchange carriers are no longer required to make further annual price cap reductions to their switched access prices. The annual reductions leading to the target rate, as well as annual reductions for the subset of special access services that remain subject to price cap regulation was set at 6.5% per year.

On September 10, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on an appeal of the FCC order adopting the plan. The court upheld the FCC on several challenges to the order, but remanded two aspects of the decision back to the FCC on the grounds that they lacked sufficient justification. The court remanded back to the FCC for further consideration its decision setting the annual reduction factor at 6.5% minus an inflation factor and the size of the new universal service fund at $650 million. The entire plan (including these elements) will continue in effect pending the FCC’s further consideration of its justification of these components. As a result of tariff adjustments which became effective in July 2002, we reached the $0.0055 benchmark.

The FCC has adopted rules for special access services that provide for pricing flexibility and ultimately the removal of services from price regulation when prescribed competitive thresholds are met. In order to use these rules, carriers must forego the ability to take advantage of provisions in the current rules that provide relief in the event earnings fall below prescribed thresholds. Verizon has been authorized to remove special access and dedicated transport services from price caps in 36 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the former Bell Atlantic territory and in 17 additional MSAs in the former GTE territory. In addition, the FCC has found that in 20 MSAs Verizon has met the stricter standards to remove special access connections to end-user customers from price caps. Verizon also has an application pending that, if granted, would remove an additional three MSAs, and special access connections to end-user customers in two additional MSAs, from price cap regulation.

In November 1999, the FCC adopted a new mechanism for providing universal service support to high cost areas served by large local telephone companies. This funding mechanism provides additional support for local telephone services in several states served by Verizon. This system has been supplemented by the new FCC access charge plan described above. On July 31, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded to the FCC for further proceedings. The court concluded that the FCC had failed to adequately explain some aspects of its decision and had failed to address any need for a state universal service mechanism. The current universal service mechanism remains in place pending the outcome of any FCC review as a result of these appeals.

Unbundling of Network Elements

In November 1999, the FCC announced its decision setting forth new unbundling requirements, eliminating elements that it had previously required to be unbundled, limiting the obligation to provide others and adding new elements.

In addition to the unbundling requirements released in November 1999, the FCC released an order in a separate proceeding in December 1999, requiring incumbent local exchange companies also to unbundle and provide to competitors the higher frequency portion of their local loop. This provides competitors with the ability to provision data services on top of incumbent carriers’ voice services.

In July 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that some aspects of the FCC’s requirements for pricing UNEs were inconsistent with the 1996 Act. In particular, it found that the FCC was wrong to require incumbent

2

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

carriers to base these prices not on their real costs but on the imaginary costs of the most efficient equipment and the most efficient network configuration. This portion of the court’s decision was stayed pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 13, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the FCC’s pricing rules.

On May 24, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released an order that overturned the most recent FCC decision establishing which network elements were required to be unbundled. In particular, the court found that the FCC did not adequately consider the limitations of the “necessary and impair” standards of the 1996 Act when it chose national rules for unbundling and that it failed to consider the relevance of competition from other types of service providers, including cable and satellite. The court also vacated a separate order that had authorized an unbundling requirement for “line sharing” where a competing carrier purchases only a portion of the copper connection to the end-user in order to provide high-speed broadband services using digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. Several parties, including the FCC, petitioned the court for rehearing of the court order. The court rejected the petitions that asked it to change its decision on September 4, 2002. The court did, however, stay its order vacating the FCC’s rules until February 20, 2003, to provide the FCC time to complete an ongoing rulemaking to determine what elements should be unbundled. Several carriers have sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the underlying court decision. That request remains pending.

On October 25, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released an order upholding the FCC’s decisions that established interim limits on the availability of combinations of UNEs known as enhanced extended links or “EELs.” EELs consist of unbundled loops and transport elements. The FCC decisions limited access to EELs to carriers that would use them to provide a significant amount of local traffic, and not just use them as substitutes for special access services.

Prior to the issuance of these orders from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the FCC had already begun a review of the scope of its unbundling requirement through a rulemaking referred to as the triennial review of UNEs. This rulemaking reopens the question of what network elements must be made available on an unbundled basis under the 1996 Act and will revisit the unbundling decisions made in the order overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In this rulemaking, the FCC also will address other pending issues relating to unbundled elements, including the question of whether competing carriers may substitute combinations of unbundled loops and transport for already competitive special access services. On February 20, 2003, the FCC announced a decision in its triennial review of UNEs, but the order has not yet been released.

Compensation for Internet Traffic

On April 27, 2001, the FCC released an order addressing intercarrier compensation for dial-up connections for Internet-bound traffic. The FCC found that Internet-bound traffic is interstate and subject to the FCC’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the FCC again found that Internet-bound traffic is not subject to reciprocal compensation under Section 251(b)(5) of the 1996 Act. Instead, the FCC established federal rates per minute for this traffic that decline from $0.0015 to $0.0007 over a three-year period. The FCC order also sets caps on the total minutes of this traffic that may be subject to any intercarrier compensation and requires that incumbent local exchange carriers must offer to both bill and pay reciprocal compensation for local traffic at the same rate as they are required to pay on Internet-bound traffic. On May 3, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected part of the FCC’s rationale for its April 27, 2001 order, but declined to vacate the order while it is on remand.

Several parties requested rehearing, asking the court to vacate the underlying order. Those requests were denied in a series of orders released on September 24, 2002 and September 25, 2002. One carrier has sought U.S. Supreme Court review of that denial. In the meantime, pending further action by the FCC, the FCC’s underlying order remains in effect.

State Regulation of Rates and Services

Maine

In June 2001, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) ordered the continuation of an Alternative Form of Regulation (AFOR) for a second five-year term. Key aspects of the new plan:

3

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

The Maine Public Advocate appealed the PUC’s AFOR decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, claiming that any extension to the AFOR must be preceded by an investigation of our costs and earnings utilizing traditional rate of return principles. On February 28, 2003, the court ruled that while state law requires that telephone rates under an AFOR are no higher than under rate of return regulation, the PUC has broad discretion in making such a determination that would not necessarily require a full rate of return inquiry. However, the court vacated and remanded the decision to the PUC for its failure to expressly make such a determination, or in the alternative that if such a showing cannot be made, that it nonetheless remains in the best interest of ratepayers to proceed with an AFOR. No change in any of our rates is required by the court’s decision while the remand proceeding is pending.

Massachusetts

In April 2001, we filed with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) a proposed alternative regulatory plan to replace the price regulation plan that was to expire in August 2001. On May 8, 2002, the DTE issued its decision in Phase I of the case in which it found that we had demonstrated the existence of sufficient competition for most of its retail business services and granted us pricing flexibility on the services. Price increases are not constrained. Price decreases are subject to price floor requirements. In addition, the DTE ruled that we should reduce state switched access prices to interstate levels on a revenue neutral basis by increases in residence dial tone rates. With respect to residence services, the DTE tentatively concluded that we should have pricing flexibility for non-basic services but that increases in basic services should be limited. The DTE directed us to file proposals consistent with its findings. These proposals are under review by the DTE in Phase II of the case, and a decision is pending.

On July 11, 2002, the DTE issued a comprehensive order in which it ruled on the cost studies used for setting our prices for UNEs. Several parties, including us, filed motions for reconsideration of various portions of the order. On January 14, 2003, the DTE issued its ruling on the motions and directed us to file new cost studies consistent with the rulings within 30 days.

On December 20, 2002, the DTE issued its decision in response to a remand by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts in an appeal brought by WorldCom Inc. and Global NAPS Inc. related to several orders of the DTE dating back to May 1999. The court ruled in an August 2002 decision that DTE orders finding that reciprocal compensation was not owed on Internet-bound traffic did not comply with federal law because the DTE had not rested its rulings on the specific language of the interconnection agreements. In its latest decision, the DTE ruled that the plain terms of the agreements excluded Internet-bound traffic from the scope of the reciprocal compensation provisions, and therefore, we had no obligation to pay reciprocal compensation on such traffic. Global NAPS Inc. and WorldCom Inc. have appealed the DTE’s decision to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts.

New Hampshire

Our operations in New Hampshire are currently subject to rate of return regulation.

Rhode Island

Pursuant to a directive of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC), we filed in July 2002 a proposal for a new alternative regulation plan to replace the existing price cap plan that was to expire in December 2002. Following the close of evidentiary hearings in the case, the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division) and our company filed a stipulation on December 6, 2002 resolving all issues in the case. The principal components of the stipulated plan are:

4

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

After further hearing and briefing, the RIPUC approved the stipulation at an open meeting on January 10, 2003, with two modifications. First, the RIPUC imposed limits on price increases for all other non-basic residential services as follows:

For services priced at $5 or less, rates may increase 15% per year

For services priced at $5.01 to $10, rates may increase 10% per year

For services priced over $10, rates may increase 5% per year

Second, the company is required to file quarterly reports showing for each wire center in the state the number of access lines served by the company and the number and type of access lines served by competitors. The RIPUC is expected to enter a written order shortly.

Vermont

In 2000, the Vermont Public Service Board approved a five-year incentive regulation plan that will provide us with increased flexibility to introduce and price new products and services. The plan also removes most restrictions on our earnings from Vermont operations during the life of the plan and contains no productivity adjustment. The plan limits our ability to raise prices on existing products and services, and requires revenue reductions of $16.5 million at the outset of the plan, $6.5 million during the first year of the plan and approximately $6.0 million over the subsequent years of the plan. The plan also requires some service quality improvements subject to financial penalty.

COMPETITION

Current and potential competitors in telecommunication services include long distance companies, other local telephone companies, cable companies, wireless service providers, foreign telecommunications providers, electric utilities, Internet service providers and other companies that offer network services. Many of these companies have a strong market presence, brand recognition and existing customer relationships, all of which contribute to intensifying competition and may affect our future revenue growth.

Local Exchange Services

The ability to offer local exchange services has historically been subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. Applications from competitors to provide and resell local exchange services have been approved in our jurisdictions. The 1996 Act has significantly increased the level of competition in our local exchange markets.

One of the purposes of the 1996 Act was to ensure, and accelerate, the emergence of competition in local exchange markets. Toward this end, the 1996 Act requires most existing local exchange carriers (incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILECs), including our company, to permit potential competitors (CLECs) to:

5

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

As a result, competition in our local exchange markets continues to increase. We are generally required to sell our services to CLECs at discounts from the prices we charge our retail customers.

Long Distance Services

We offer intraLATA long distance services. IntraLATA toll calls originate and terminate within the same LATA, but generally cover a greater distance than a local call. State regulatory commissions rather than federal authorities generally regulate these services. Federal regulators have jurisdiction over interstate toll services. All of our state regulatory commissions permit other carriers to offer intraLATA toll services within our states.

Alternative Access Services

A substantial portion of our revenues from business and government customers is derived from a relatively small number of large, multiple-line subscribers.

We face competition from alternative communications systems, constructed by large end-users, interexchange carriers and alternative access vendors, which are capable of originating and/or terminating calls without the use of our plant. The FCC’s orders requiring us to offer collocated interconnection for special and switched access services have enhanced the ability of such alternative access providers to compete with us.

Other potential sources of competition include cable television systems, shared tenant services and other noncarrier systems which are capable of bypassing our local plant, either partially or completely, through substitution of special access for switched access or through concentration of telecommunications traffic on fewer of our lines.

Wireless Services

Wireless services also constitute a significant source of competition to our wireline telecommunications services, especially as wireless carriers (including Verizon Wireless) expand and improve their network coverage and continue to lower their prices to end-users. As a result, more end-users are substituting wireless services for basic wireline service. Wireless telephone services can also be used for data transmission.

Public Telephone Services

The growth of wireless communications has significantly decreased usage of public telephones, as more customers are substituting wireless services for public telephone services. In addition, we face competition from other providers of public telephone services.

Operator Services

Our operator services product line faces competition from alternative operator services providers and Internet service providers.

6

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Item 2. Properties

GENERAL

Our principal properties do not lend themselves to simple description by character and location. Our investment in plant, property and equipment consisted of the following at December 31:

“Central office equipment” consists of switching equipment, transmission equipment and related facilities. “Outside communications plant” consists primarily of aerial cable, underground cable, conduit and wiring, and telephone poles. “Land and buildings” consists of land and land improvements, and principally central office buildings. “Furniture, vehicles and other work equipment” consists of public telephone instruments and telephone equipment, furniture, office equipment, motor vehicles and other work equipment. “Other” property consists primarily of plant under construction, capital leases, capitalized computer software costs and leasehold improvements.

All of our properties, located in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, are generally in good operating condition and are adequate to satisfy the needs of our business.

Our customers are served by electronic switching systems that provide a wide variety of services. Our network has full digital capability to furnish advanced data transmission and information management services.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

We continue to make significant capital expenditures to meet the demand for communications services and to further improve such services. Capital spending was approximately $820 million in 2002, $1,282 million in 2001 and $1,383 million in 2000. Capital spending for those years excludes capitalized non-network software and additions under capital leases. Our total investment in plant, property and equipment was approximately $17.3 billion at December 31, 2002, $17.0 billion at December 31, 2001 and $15.9 billion at December 31, 2000, including the effect of retirements, but before deducting accumulated depreciation.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

There were no proceedings reportable under Item 3.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

7

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

Not applicable.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

8

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations

              (Abbreviated pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Financial Statements and Notes to Financial Statements listed in the index set forth on page F-1.

OVERVIEW

Description of Business

Verizon New England Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYNEX Corporation (NYNEX), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon). We presently serve a territory consisting of Local Access and Transport Areas (LATAs) in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. We have one reportable segment which provides domestic wireline telecommunications services. We currently provide two basic types of telecommunications services:

The communications services we provide are subject to regulation by the state regulatory commissions of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont with respect to intrastate rates and services and other matters. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates rates that we charge long distance carriers and end-user subscribers for interstate access services. For a further discussion of the Company and our regulatory plans, see Item 1—“Description of Business.”

Critical Accounting Policies

A summary of the critical accounting policies used in preparing our financial statements are as follows:

Most of our employees participate in Verizon’s defined benefit pension plans and postretirement benefit plans. In the aggregate, the fair value of pension plan assets exceeds pension plan benefit obligations. Significant pension and postretirement benefit plan assumptions, including the discount rate used, the long-term rate of return on plan assets, and medical cost trend rates are periodically updated and impact the amount of pension plan results, assets and obligations. For more information on pension plan assumptions, see Note 8 to the financial statements.

Our current and deferred income taxes and associated valuation allowances (if any) are impacted by events and transactions arising in the normal course of business, as well as in connection with special and non-recurring items. Assessment of the appropriate amount and classification of income taxes is dependent on several factors, including estimates of the timing and realization of deferred income tax assets and the timing of income tax payments. Actual collections and payments may differ from these estimates as a result of changes in tax laws, as well as unanticipated future transactions impacting related income tax balances.

We compute depreciation on plant, property, and equipment principally on the composite group remaining life method and straight-line composite rates over estimated useful lives ranging from 3 to 50 years. This method provides for the recognition of the cost of the remaining net investment in telephone plant, less anticipated net salvage value (if any), over the remaining asset lives. This method requires the periodic revision of depreciation rates. For a discussion of a change in the accounting for the retirement of certain assets see “Other Matters—Recent Accounting Pronouncements—Asset Retirement Obligations” below. Changes in the estimated useful lives of plant, property, and equipment or depreciation methods could have a material effect on our results of operations.

9

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

We recognize service revenues based upon usage of our local exchange network and facilities and contract fees. We recognize product and other service revenues when the products are delivered and accepted by the customers and when services are provided in accordance with contract terms.

In the course of conducting our business, we provide services to and purchase goods and services from affiliated companies. These transactions are supported by tariff rates or contractual agreements the terms of which require estimates and judgments to fairly value such transactions.

All of our significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the financial statements.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

We reported net income of $233.2 million in 2002, compared to net income of $294.9 million in 2001. Our reported results included the following special items:

Employee Terminations

The following table provides a summary of the special charges recorded in 2002 and 2001 related to employee terminations.

As part of a Verizon workforce reduction plan, we have continued to reduce our headcount as allowed under various management and associate employee benefit plans. As a result, we recorded $1.3 million and $114.0 million in 2002 and 2001, respectively, in connection with various pension and retirement benefit enhancements. Also during 2002, we recorded a $33.0 million pension settlement loss as lump-sum payments exceeded the threshold of service and interest costs. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2002, we recorded a curtailment loss of $92.6 million associated with a significant reduction of the expected years of future service of present employees, which was largely impacted by the involuntary employee terminations in December 2002. The special termination benefits, curtailment and settlement of pension obligations are recorded in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 88, “Employers’ Accounting for Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Pension Plans and for Termination Benefits” and SFAS No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other than Pensions.”

Also during 2002 and 2001, we recorded special charges of $64.8 million and $72.0 million, respectively, for the voluntary and involuntary separation of management and associate employees in accordance with SFAS No. 112, “Employers’ Accounting for Postemployment Benefits.” As of December 31, 2002, a total of over 1,900 employees have been separated under the 2001 and 2002 severance programs. We expect to complete the termination of the employees within a year of when the respective charges were recorded. Employee benefit costs are recorded in operations and support expense in our statements of income.

See Note 8 to the financial statements for additional information about our employee benefits.

WorldCom Inc.

In 2002, we recorded an impairment charge of $43.5 million driven by our financial statement exposure to WorldCom Inc. (WorldCom). This charge was recorded in operations and support expense in our statements of income.

WorldCom, including its affiliates, purchases dedicated local exchange capacity from us to support its private networks and we also charge WorldCom for access to our local network. In addition, we sell local wholesale interconnection services and

10

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

provide billing and collection services to WorldCom. We purchase long distance and related services from WorldCom. On July 21, 2002, WorldCom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

During 2002, we recorded revenues earned from the provision of primarily network access services to WorldCom of $187.1 million. If WorldCom terminates contracts with us for the provision of services, our operating revenues would be lower in future periods. Lower revenues as a result of canceling contracts for the provision of services could be partially offset, in some cases, by the migration of customers on the terminated facilities to us or other carriers who purchase capacity and/or interconnection services from us.

At December 31, 2002, accounts receivable from WorldCom, net of a provision for uncollectibles, was $37.5 million. We continue to closely monitor our collections on WorldCom account balances. WorldCom is current with respect to its post-bankruptcy obligations. We believe that we are adequately reserved for the potential risk of non-payment of pre-bankruptcy receivables from WorldCom.

Extraordinary Items

During 2002, we recorded extraordinary charges that reduced net income by $22.9 million (net of an income tax benefits of $14.9 million) associated with early extinguishments of long-term debt. The extinguishments consisted of the following:

During 2001, we recorded an extraordinary charge associated with the early extinguishment of debt, which reduced net income by $29,000 (net of an income tax benefit of $18,800). We redeemed $50.0 million 4 ¹/2% debenture due on July 1, 2002.

Cumulative Effect of Change in Accounting Principle

In 2001, we recorded a credit to earnings of $.3 million (net of income taxes of $.1 million) for the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle associated with the adoption of SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” on January 1, 2001. For additional information, see Note 6 to the financial statements.

Transactions with Affiliates

Our financial statements include transactions with affiliates. The more significant affiliate transactions include revenues earned from Verizon Internet Services Inc., Verizon Advanced Data Inc., Verizon Services, Verizon Wireless Inc. and Verizon Long Distance for utilization of our network facilities and provision of services.

In addition, our operating revenues and expenses include transactions with other Verizon Operating Telephone Companies primarily for the rental of facilities and equipment and interconnection services.

Further, we recognize operating expenses in connection with contractual arrangements with affiliates, primarily Verizon Services, for the provision of various centralized services to us. We recognize interest income and interest expense in connection with contractual agreements with Verizon Network Funding Corporation, Verizon NSI Holdings Inc. and Bell Atlantic Administrative Services, Inc. for the provision of short-term financing and cash management services. We recognize equity income from our investment in Verizon Services Group. Through January 2003, we recognized equity losses from our investment in Verizon Ventures III Inc. (Ventures III). We also pay quarterly dividends to our parent, NYNEX.

See Note 10 to the financial statements for additional information about our transactions with affiliates.

11

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

These and other items affecting the comparison of our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 are discussed in the following sections.

OPERATING REVENUES

(Dollars in Millions)

LOCAL SERVICES

Local service revenues are earned from the provision of local exchange, local private line, wire maintenance, voice messaging and value-added services. Value-added services are a family of services that expand the utilization of the network, including products such as Caller ID, Call Waiting and Return Call. The provision of local exchange services not only includes retail revenues, but also includes local wholesale revenues from unbundled network elements (UNEs), interconnection revenues from competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), certain data transport revenues and wireless interconnection revenues.

Local service revenues declined in 2002 primarily due to the effect of lower demand and usage of some basic wireline services and price discounts on product bundling offers. Our switched access lines in service declined 5.2% from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2002, primarily reflecting the impact of the economic slowdown and competition. Technology substitution has also affected local service revenue growth, as indicated by lower demand for residential access lines. In addition, the effect of lower billings to CLECs for the purchase of UNEs and for interconnection of their network with our network further contributed to the decrease in local service revenues in 2002.

NETWORK ACCESS SERVICES

Network access service revenues are earned from end-user subscribers and from long distance and other competing carriers who use our local exchange facilities to provide usage services to their customers. Switched access revenues are derived from fixed and usage-based charges paid by carriers for access to our local network. Special access revenues originate from carriers and end-users that buy dedicated local exchange capacity to support their private networks. End-user access revenues are earned from our customers and from resellers who purchase dial-tone services.

The decrease in network access revenues in 2002 was mainly attributable to lower demand for switched access services due, in part, to the weakened economy and technology substitution. Network access revenues were also lower due to mandated price reductions on interstate and intrastate services and other regulatory decisions. These factors were partially offset by higher revenues from special access services, as more customers in the business market demand high-capacity, high-speed digital services.

12

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

LONG DISTANCE SERVICES

Long distance revenues are earned primarily from calls made to points outside a customer’s local calling area, but within our service area (intraLATA toll). IntraLATA toll calls originate and terminate within the same LATA, but generally cover a greater distance than a local call. These services are regulated by state regulatory commissions except where they cross state lines. Other long distance services that we provide include 800 services and Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS).

Long distance service revenues declined in 2002 primarily due to the effects of competition and toll calling discount packages and product bundling offers of our intraLATA toll services. Technology substitution and lower access line growth due to the slowing economy also affected long distance service revenue growth.

OTHER SERVICES

Our other services include such services as billing and collections for long distance carriers and affiliates, facilities rentals to affiliates and nonaffiliates, public (pay) telephone, customer premises equipment (CPE) and sales of materials and supplies to affiliates. Other service revenues also include fees paid by customers for nonpublication of telephone numbers and multiple white page listings and fees paid by an affiliate for usage of our directory listings.

Other service revenues decreased in 2002 primarily due to the effect of a one-time reclassification in 2001 associated with regulatory-related activities. In addition, lower facilities rental revenues also contributed to the decrease in other service revenues.

OPERATING EXPENSES

(Dollars in Millions)

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

Operations and support expenses consist of employee costs and other operating expenses. Employee costs consist of salaries, wages and other employee compensation, employee benefits and payroll taxes. Other operating expenses consist of contract services including centralized services expenses allocated from affiliates, rent, network software costs, operating taxes other than income, the provision for uncollectible accounts receivable, reciprocal compensation, and other costs.

The increase in operations and support expenses was mainly attributable to increased costs of approximately $62 million associated with uncollectible accounts receivable in 2002, as compared to 2001. Employee costs increased slightly in 2002 due to higher benefit costs and salary and wage increases, substantially offset by the effect of declining workforce levels. As described earlier, we recorded charges of $191.7 million in 2002, compared to $186.0 million in 2001, associated with employee termination costs and a charge of $43.5 million associated with uncollectible accounts receivable from WorldCom. Pension income (after consideration of capitalized costs and excluding special termination charges) was $167.2 million and $186.7 million in 2002 and 2001, respectively.

These increases were substantially offset by lower spending for contracted and centralized services expenses principally as a result of lower volumes of business and cost containment measures.

13

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION

Depreciation and amortization expense increased in 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to growth in depreciable telephone plant. This increase was partially offset by the effect of lower rates of depreciation.

OTHER RESULTS

(Dollars in Millions)

OTHER INCOME AND (EXPENSE), NET

Other income and (expense), net includes equity income (losses), interest income and other nonoperating income and expense items.

The increase in other income and (expense), net, was primarily attributable to lower equity losses in 2002, as compared to 2001, recognized from our investment in Verizon Ventures III Inc. (Ventures III).

INTEREST EXPENSE

Interest expense includes costs associated with borrowing and capital leases, net of capitalized interest costs. We capitalize interest associated with the acquisition or construction of plant assets. Capitalized interest is reported as a cost of plant and a reduction in interest expense.

Interest expense increased in 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to the effect of higher levels of long-term debt and lower capitalized interest costs resulting from lower levels of average telephone plant under construction. These increases were substantially offset by lower interest rates on short-term and variable debt with an affiliate and the effect of lower average levels of short-term debt with an affiliate.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional information about our debt.

EFFECTIVE INCOME TAX RATES

The effective income tax rate is the provision for income taxes as a percentage of income before provision for income taxes and extraordinary items. Our effective income tax rate was lower in 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to the effect of lower equity losses associated with our investment in Ventures III, for which we do not recognize income tax benefits, and an increase in non-taxable equity income from our investment in Verizon Services Group.

You can find a reconciliation of the statutory federal income tax rate to the effective income tax rate for each period in Note 9 to the financial statements.

14

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

OTHER MATTERS

In-Region Long Distance

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, our ability to offer in-region long distance services (that is, services originating in the states where we operate as a local exchange carrier) is largely dependent on satisfying specified requirements. The requirements include a 14-point “competitive checklist” of steps which we must take to help competitors offer local services through resale, through purchase of UNEs, or by interconnecting their own networks to ours. We must also demonstrate to the FCC that entry into the in-region long distance market would be in the public interest.

On April 16, 2001, February 22, 2002, April 17, 2002, June 19, 2002, and September 25, 2002, the FCC released orders approving our applications for permission to enter the in-region long distance markets in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, respectively. The U.S. Court of Appeals has remanded the Massachusetts order to the FCC for further explanation on one issue, but left our long distance authority in effect. Since April 26, 2001, March 7, 2002, April 30, 2002, July 1, 2002 and October 23, 2002 in-region long distance service is being offered in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, respectively, by a separate non-regulated subsidiary of Verizon as required by law.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting for Stock Options

In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure.” This standard amends SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, this statement amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. This statement permits two additional transition methods (modified prospective and retroactive restatement) for entities that adopt the preferable method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation.

We participate in employee compensation plans sponsored by Verizon with awards of Verizon common stock. Effective January 1, 2003, Verizon adopted the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, using the prospective method, for all new awards granted to employees after January 1, 2003. Under the prospective method, employee compensation expense in the first year will be recognized for new awards granted, modified, or settled. However, in subsequent years, the vesting of awards issued on or after January 1, 2003 may cause an increase in employee compensation expense.

Asset Retirement Obligations

On January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” This standard provides the accounting for the cost of legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets. SFAS No. 143 requires that companies recognize the fair value of a liability for asset retirement obligations in the period in which the obligations are incurred and capitalize that amount as part of the book value of the long-lived asset. We have determined that we do not have a material legal obligation to remove long-lived assets as described by this statement. However, we have included estimated removal costs in our group depreciation models. These costs have increased depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation for future removal costs for existing assets. These removal costs are recorded as a reduction to accumulated depreciation when the assets are retired and removal costs are incurred.

For some assets, such as telephone poles, the removal costs exceed salvage value. Under the provisions of SFAS No. 143, we are required to exclude costs of removal from our depreciation rates for assets for which the removal costs exceed salvage. Accordingly, in connection with the initial adoption of this standard on January 1, 2003, we have reversed accrued costs of removal in excess of salvage from our accumulated depreciation accounts for these assets. The adjustment was recorded as a cumulative effect of an accounting change, resulting in the recognition of a gain of approximately $609 million ($369 million after-tax). Effective January 1, 2003, we began expensing costs of removal in excess of salvage for these assets as incurred. The impact of this change in accounting will result in a decrease in depreciation expense and an increase in operations and support expense. We estimate the net impact in 2003, excluding the cumulative effect adjustment, will not be material to our results of operations.

15

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Debt Extinguishment

In April 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections.” SFAS No. 145, among other things, eliminates the requirement that all gains and losses on the extinguishment of debt must be classified as extraordinary items on the income statement, thereby permitting the classification of such gains and losses as extraordinary items only if the criteria of Accounting Principles Board (APB) No. 30 are met. We are required to adopt this provision of SFAS No. 145 effective January 1, 2003 and, upon adoption, we will reclassify in our statements of income previously reported extraordinary charges for the early extinguishment of debt to income from continuing operations.

Exit or Disposal Activities

In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.” This standard addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities and nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3, “Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring).” EITF Issue No. 94-3 required accrual of liabilities related to exit and disposal activities at a plan (commitment) date. SFAS No. 146 requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. The provisions of this standard are effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002.

Contractual Obligations

The following table provides a summary of our contractual obligations at December 31, 2002. Additional detail about these items is included in the notes to the financial statements.

Subsequent Events

On December 5, 2002, we declared a dividend in the amount of $157.0 million. The dividend was paid to our parent, NYNEX on February 3, 2003.

On March 6, 2003, we redeemed the entire outstanding principal amount of our $60.0 million 4 ⁵/8% debentures, due July 1, 2005. This redemption will not result in a material charge to results of operations.

16

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Item 7A.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

We are exposed to interest rate risk in the normal course of our business. We employ risk management strategies including the use of interest rate swap agreements to manage this exposure. We do not hold derivatives for trading purposes. Our objective in managing interest rate risk is to maintain a mix of fixed and variable rate debt that will lower our overall borrowing costs within reasonable risk parameters. Our short-term borrowings from an affiliate expose our earnings to changes in short-term interest rates since the interest rate charged on such borrowings is typically fixed for less than one month. Our variable-rate medium-term borrowing from an affiliate exposes our earnings to changes in short-term interest rates since the interest rate charged is reset each quarter. We have entered into domestic interest rate swaps to achieve a targeted mix of fixed and variable rate debt.

The following table summarizes the fair values of our long-term debt and interest rate derivatives as of December 31, 2002 and 2001. The table also provides a sensitivity analysis of the estimated fair values of these financial instruments assuming 100-basis-point upward and downward parallel shifts in the yield curve. The sensitivity analysis did not include the fair values of our short-term borrowings from an affiliate or our variable-rate medium-term borrowing from an affiliate since they are not significantly affected by changes in market interest rates.

It is our policy to enter into interest rate swap agreements only to the extent necessary to achieve the desired objectives of management in limiting our exposure to interest rate risk. We do not hedge all of our interest rate risk exposures in a manner that would completely eliminate the impact of changes in interest rates on our net income. We do not expect that our results of operations or liquidity will be materially affected by these risk management activities.

Item 8.    Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The information required by this Item is set forth on Pages F-1 through F-28.

Item 9.    Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

Not applicable.

PART III

Item 10.    Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

Item 11.    Executive Compensation

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

Item 12.    Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

Item 13.    Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

(Omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2).)

17

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Item 14.    Controls and Procedures

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our chief executive officer and chief financial officer have evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this annual report (Evaluation Date), that ensure that information relating to the registrant which is required to be disclosed in this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within required time periods. They have concluded that as of the Evaluation Date, the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were adequate and effective to ensure that material information relating to the registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries would be made known to them by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report was being prepared.

(b) Changes in Internal Controls

There were no significant changes in the registrant’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the Evaluation Date, nor were there any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in these controls requiring corrective actions.

PART IV

Item 15.    Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on Form 8-K

(a) The following documents are filed as part of this report:

(1) Financial Statements

See Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule appearing on Page F-1.

(2) Financial Statement Schedules

See Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule appearing on Page F-1.

(3) Exhibits

18

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

(b) Reports on Form 8-K:

A Current Report on Form 8-K was furnished on November 13, 2002, containing certification statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to Exchange Act filings, signed by the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and by the Chief Financial Officer and Controller.

19

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

20

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr., certify that:

Date:    March 19, 2003

21

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lawrence R. Whitman, certify that:

Date:    March 19, 2003

22

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule

Financial statement schedules other than those listed above have been omitted because such schedules are not required or applicable.

F-1

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Shareowner

Verizon New England Inc.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Verizon New England Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of income, changes in shareowner’s investment, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule referenced in the index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and the financial statement schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Verizon New England Inc. at December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York

January 29, 2003

F-2

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

STATEMENTS OF INCOME

For the Years Ended December 31

(Dollars in Millions)

See Notes to Financial Statements.

F-3

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in Millions)

ASSETS

See Notes to Financial Statements.

F-4

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in Millions)

LIABILITIES AND SHAREOWNER’S INVESTMENT

See Notes to Financial Statements.

F-5

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN SHAREOWNER’S INVESTMENT

For the Years Ended December 31

(Dollars in Millions)

See Notes to Financial Statements.

F-6

Table of Contents

Verizon New England Inc.

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

For the Years Ended December 31

(Dollars in Millions)