Verizon Again Threatens Massachusetts Investment - Despite having run out of things to threaten the state about...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Verizon Again Threatens Massachusetts Investment Despite having run out of things to threaten the state about... 01:03PM Thursday Aug 06 2009 by Karl Bode tags: dsl · legal · competition · business · Op/Ed · legislation · Verizon FIOS · Verizon Online DSL Tipped by Cabal
In 1915, in order to spur deployment of phone service to under-served areas of the State, Massachusetts lawmakers exempted phone company poles and cables from property taxes when they passed through public property. Nearly a century later, the state is trying to change that and as you can imagine -- it doesn't sit well with Verizon. According to the Boston Globe, Verizon's tax exemption was deemed unnecessary and set aside back in 2008. Verizon's been fighting them ever since. Verizon has a long history of threatening States with scaled back infrastructure investment if lawmakers don't pass the laws Verizon lobbyists want passed (and frankly, in many instances, have they themselves written). Sticking with standard procedure, Verizon lawyers are threatening the State by saying they "may" pass the taxes on to consumers, and may scale back state investment: Santoro also warned that if his company ultimately loses, it may recoup the taxes by charging customers higher rates for telephone or Internet service. "It may very well affect customers bills," he said, "but I dont know yet." Santoro said Verizon is still committed to building its FIOS fiber-optic broadband service in Massachusetts, but that other big-ticket network upgrades might be shelved if its property tax bill increases. This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they currently owe. Verizon threatened to stall FiOS when talk of charging Verizon property taxes first bubbled up back in 2007, and it's a very common tactic in other states. The only reason Santoro doesn't specifically threaten FiOS deployment here is because Verizon already played that card, recently telling Massachusetts they'd stop FiOS deployment if the State didn't pass Verizon-friendly franchise "reform" laws. The State obliged, despite the fact the laws made it easier for Verizon to cherry pick FiOS deployment markets across the State. Given their FiOS threat well had run dry, apparently all that's left is the threat of nebulous reductions in "other big ticket network upgrades." With States and cities facing tight budgets, it's not clear whether lawmakers will buckle this time. In a press release, Verizon insists the tax exemption was designed to "encourage technology deployment, investment and innovation," while complaining that repealing the taxes would "undermine investment and innovation." But Massachusetts, like most of Verizon's New England markets, has struggled with Verizon's unwillingness to wire rural markets -- despite tax incentives. Much of Verizon's state copper infrastructure is antiquated. The traditional problem with such incentive programs and telcos is that well-lobbied lawmakers, not-coincidentally, never quite remember to hold incumbent phone companies accountable should they ignore deployment promises. But when state and city money is at play and not your taxpayer dollars -- suddenly politicians become much more interested in holding Verizon's feet to the fire. Whoever wins here, you'll still see higher bills and limited next-gen broadband deployment. Related:- Is Verizon Considering Metered Billing?
- Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial
- Verizon Named Most Trusted Company With Your Privacy. Really?
- Verizon CEO Admits Landlines Are Dead
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
- FCC Study: Open Access Lowers Prices, Improves Competition
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
PapaMidnight @ 6th Aug 11:44AM:
How much can you scale back?
How much can you scale back when you're already cherry picking half the neighborhoods you build out in in the first place?
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Aug 11:44AM:
So Massachusetts Should Listen
Considering that Massachusetts recently passed a law that would stimulate the economy of southern New Hampshire (MA raised its sales tax), I can't imagine that the pols there are smart enough to understand the gravity of this threat.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
reply
kyler13 @ 6th Aug 11:53AM:
Ultimatum
Mass to Verizon: Please pay taxes or pull your poles immediately. You can't because of your federally mandated traditional copper phone network? Guess that leaves one option, then. And if you decide to shelf FIOS deployment, good luck selling your DSL opposite DOCSIS 3.0 deployment.
Seriously, when will gov't learn?
reply
RJ44 @ 6th Aug 11:54AM:
What threat?
"The threat to pull FiOS isn't new..."
"Santoro said Verizon is still committed to building its FIOS fiber-optic broadband service in Massachusetts, but that other big-ticket network upgrades might be shelved if its property tax bill increases."
I don't see where there's any threat to scale back FIOS deployment here. Maybe it's somewhere in the fine print or buried in one of those links, but it would be nice if the news department here didn't contradict their own assertions, apparently without even realizing they've done so.
reply
BF69 @ 6th Aug 11:55AM:
Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State
that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
reply
bigjimc @ 6th Aug 11:59AM:
FiOS Rollout On Hold
I have FiOS at my home but at my rural office, the rollout was suspended due back in Feb 2008. It was half rolled out in an adjacent community then stopped.
The copper phone wires are so antiquated that the POTS service is abysmal.
But I still shed no tears for Verizon.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 6th Aug 12:00PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by BF69 :
This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State
that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
You're applying common sense because you have a limited budget. VZ does not care how much money it has to spend because its pockets are deeper than god's.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 6th Aug 12:03PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by BF69 :
This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State
that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
But it has a deterrent effect. If the state loses once again they are LESS likely to attempt further tax increases down the line.
And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles. That is really stupid since taxes will just be passed on anyway to telco customers.
Oh wait !! I forgot. Pols always try to pass tax increases that are done on the sly where they are hidden in the cost of a company's doing business. The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
iansltx @ 6th Aug 12:04PM:
Re: Ultimatum
You got that right. Verizon's FiOS project is a moneymaker for them, and they're only going to deploy it where they make money anyhow. Property taxes aren't going to change that much, especially when the alternative is selling $40 DSL with no TV and seeing phone revenues to to cellular providers or Comcast. Fortunately they're a cellular provider, but...
reply
John Galt @ 6th Aug 12:21PM:
Re: FiOS Rollout On Hold
said by bigjimc :
The copper phone wires are so antiquated that the POTS service is abysmal.
The MA grassroots organizations are attacking Verizon on this very issue. They are hugely vulnerable in that respect.
--
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
reply
stevek1949 @ 6th Aug 12:21PM:
Re: Ultimatum
There is no such thing as a business tax. It is treated as a cost of doing business. The costs are always passed on to the consumer as increased rates. Nothing new here.
reply
morbo @ 6th Aug 12:23PM:
call their bluff
Massachusetts: time to call Verizon's bluff.
reply
Maggs @ 6th Aug 12:28PM:
Cut their franchise agreeements
All they have to do is table their franchise agreements for failure to pay taxes. If Mass really had some balls, they would have them discontinue service in the state. Imagine 1 million people calling Verizon. Lawmakers need to grow some balls.
--
Hello, is anyone out there.
reply
DaveNJ @ 6th Aug 12:39PM:
Verizon should sell off Mass
Verizon should just sell off assets to another buyer.. by that time, DOCsis 4 , will come out, and Mass will be even further behind. Maybe Embarq can by them.
reply
backness @ 6th Aug 12:43PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
Interesting logic.
Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
reply
bicker @ 6th Aug 12:45PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
Of course it does: Far better to pay $2000 to ensure that you don't have to pay $1000 per year in taxes.
reply
bicker @ 6th Aug 12:45PM:
Re: call their bluff
You mean like New Hampshire did? That sure worked out for the people of New Hampshire, eh?
reply
ptrowski @ 6th Aug 12:57PM:
Re: What threat?
Of course they are not going to physically pull the fiber. It's a term used to stop deployment or bring it to a crawl.
reply
wdoa @ 6th Aug 01:00PM:
Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
Verizon has already stopped their FIOS rollouts in Massachusetts. They finished up the cherry picked communities they had started a few years ago and now have come to a dead stop. In Central Massachusetts they have no real plans to roll FIOS out beyond a the few towns east of Worcester. I say sure let them have their tax exemption in towns that they provide FIOS service, however in towns that they do not levy the tax and double it every year until they provide service.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 6th Aug 01:04PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by backness :
Interesting logic.
Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
I don't. I don't think there should be any corporate taxes at all since they are merely passed on to customers in any case. Taxes on corporations are merely ways for cowardly & deceitful politicians to hide their money grabs.
And besides, corporate taxes are regressive because they always hit the customers and NOT the stockholders. So those least likely to be able to afford higher taxes are the ones who really pay for corporate taxes.
If politicians were honest(ROTFLMAO) they would pass more progessive income taxes and not corporate taxes. But they are bought & paid for by the richest Americans.
The fact that all these uninformed voters RANT CONSTANTLY about corporate taxes shows that the politicians have FOOLED most of the people. But believe me, the rich aren't fooled.
So, cheer on all the corporate taxes you want, because if they do that instead of raising income tax rates, I'll laugh all the way to the bank.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
RJ44 @ 6th Aug 01:05PM:
Re: What threat?
said by ptrowski :
Of course they are not going to physically pull the fiber. It's a term used to stop deployment or bring it to a crawl.
Huh? The Verizon spokesman said (quoting the article)
"Santoro said Verizon is still committed to building its FIOS fiber-optic broadband service in Massachusetts".
How is that a threat to FIOS deployment?
reply
nasadude @ 6th Aug 01:07PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by backness :
...Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
because he's a free market man and whatever business wants, business should get. business is the be-all and end-all for the U S of A and we don't want to mess with the utopian paradise the U.S. has become.
reply
AMDUSER @ 6th Aug 01:08PM:
Re: Ultimatum
Why not use emminent domain to seize the poles.. and charge them rent to connect to them. [It will pay for itself- immediately..]
reply
ptrowski @ 6th Aug 01:12PM:
Re: What threat?
said by RJ44 :said by ptrowski :
Of course they are not going to physically pull the fiber. It's a term used to stop deployment or bring it to a crawl.
Huh? The Verizon spokesman said (quoting the article)
"Santoro said Verizon is still committed to building its FIOS fiber-optic broadband service in Massachusetts".
How is that a threat to FIOS deployment?
The threat would be the speed that it takes. Technically they could light up one community in the year and still say they are building it out. They can slow the pace considerably.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org
reply
RJ44 @ 6th Aug 01:17PM:
Re: What threat?
There WAS no threat to FIOS deployment in that statement.
I see the headline has now been changed to reflect that. Less sensationalistic, but much more accurate.
reply
morbo @ 6th Aug 01:22PM:
Re: call their bluff
working under threat by telco is no way to work. MA should fund a public fiber network. Invite all ISPs to offer service on it. Oh, except Verizon for being such a douche.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 6th Aug 01:30PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :
I don't think there should be any corporate taxes at all since they are merely passed on to customers in any case.
Obviously you must mean all those taxes the rest of us pay so that corporations can collect welfare later on after 2/3rds of their profits have been safely offshored from the prying eyes of the IRS.
Yep. Consumers sure do see a ::SIGNIFICANT:: reduction in their taxes...particularly the kind that go towards bailouts for bankers and American vehicle manufacturers.
reply
stephenju @ 6th Aug 01:34PM:
Socialize it!
As the pioneer of so many social issues and model for the whole people's nation, why doesn't MA just arrest those telco heads for anti-progressive capitalism and put them to work on FIOS deployment in reform camps? Or tax the entire company's value to make it state-own? Nothing an all-encompassing big government can not solve!
FREE FIOS TO EVERYONE!
It's an unavoidable historic trend as Chairman Mao once said. :)
I am only kidding. Don't send me to the camp! Please!
reply
SilverSurfer @ 6th Aug 01:38PM:
Re: Cut their franchise agreeements
said by Maggs :
All they have to do is table their franchise agreements for failure to pay taxes. If Mass really had some balls, they would have them discontinue service in the state. Imagine 1 million people calling Verizon. Lawmakers need to grow some balls.
That's a beautiful theory but whores politicians don't generally tick off their johns highest paying constituents.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 6th Aug 02:03PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
MA can tell VZ to drop dead and pull their right to offer TV services. Then what will VZ do? raise Internet and Phone? OOPS! The state regulates Phone prices so i guess VZ will only be offering high priced Internet if anything at all by then.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Aug 02:08PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :
And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that the state wants to collect property taxes from VZ for "public" property? Also, doesn't VZ already pay franchise fees that were negotiated for use of the public property in the first place?
reply
patcat88 @ 6th Aug 02:10PM:
Re: How much can you scale back?
said by PapaMidnight :
How much can you scale back when you're already cherry picking half the neighborhoods you build out in in the first place?
Maintain nothing, collect fines, have your shell LLC declare bankruptcy, buy it in court under liquidation for pennies on the dollar.
reply
patcat88 @ 6th Aug 02:11PM:
Re: Ultimatum
Why doesn't the power company own them? What, it rents them?
reply
patcat88 @ 6th Aug 02:13PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
said by hottboiinnc :
]The state regulates Phone prices so i guess VZ will only be offering high priced Internet if anything at all by then.
Not anymore. Rate of return is long dead, you must be thinking of Ma Bell.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 6th Aug 02:19PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
rate of return dead? Not in Ohio. Want to make more money to off set something the Bells did? Go to the PUC and ask for a rate increase on services. BOOM! Money in pocket. And i'm sure many other states will do it as well. I mean why are we still paying $7+ for caller id?
reply
patcat88 @ 6th Aug 02:42PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
said by hottboiinnc :
rate of return dead? Not in Ohio. Want to make more money to off set something the Bells did? Go to the PUC and ask for a rate increase on services. BOOM! Money in pocket. And i'm sure many other states will do it as well. I mean why are we still paying $7+ for caller id?
»psc.wi.gov/consumerinfo/FAQ's/te···Tele.htm
What about detariffing of services in Ohio? Can you still get ISDN in non-DSL areas, or its been detariffed and grandfathered?
reply
backness @ 6th Aug 02:50PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
I'm not cheering anything. Being part of society has certain obligations. You don't get the benefits of protection of the American Legal system for free you know. I'll ask you why a company should be allowed to use the country for its own gain but return nothing to it.
As for the corporate taxes not affecting shareholders, do you even own any stock? I hate to say it but bottom line earnings are calculated AFTER income taxes.
Keep digging.
Sorry to feed the trolls :)
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 03:00PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :said by backness :
Interesting logic.
Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
I don't. I don't think there should be any
corporate taxes at all since they are merely
passed on to customers in any case. Taxes on corporations are merely ways for cowardly & deceitful politicians to hide their money grabs.
And besides, corporate taxes are regressive because they always hit the customers and NOT the stockholders. So those least likely to be able to afford higher taxes are the ones who really pay for corporate taxes.
If politicians were honest(ROTFLMAO) they would pass more progessive income taxes and not corporate taxes. But they are bought & paid for by the richest Americans.
The fact that all these uninformed voters RANT CONSTANTLY about corporate taxes shows that the politicians have FOOLED most of the people. But believe me, the rich aren't fooled.
So, cheer on all the corporate taxes you want, because if they do that instead of raising income tax rates, I'll laugh all the way to the bank.
There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not. After all, why leave money on the table? Conversely, if they feel the consumer is already paying as much as the consumer is willing to bear, they'll be very careful about passing on any increases in their own costs, and if there are any new costs (including taxes) they'll probably absorb the bulk of them. Put another way - he who is desperate pays, and he who is more desperate pays more. If the seller's supply curve is more inelastic than the buyer's demand curve, the seller will absorb more of the taxes - even taxes on the buyer. If the buyer's demand curve is more inelastic, the buyer will absorb of taxes, including corporate taxes.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 03:01PM:
Re: Verizon should sell off Mass
There is no DOCSIS 4...they're *still* working on DOCSIS 3, which can theoretically go up to 1 gbps.
reply
jjeffeory @ 6th Aug 03:03PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :said by BF69 :
This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State
that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
But it has a deterrent effect. If the state loses once again they are LESS likely to attempt further tax increases down the line.
And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles. That is really stupid since taxes will just be passed on anyway to telco customers.
Oh wait !! I forgot. Pols always try to pass tax increases that are done on the sly where they are hidden in the cost of a company's doing business. The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
Maybe if they shrank the gov't they wouldn't need more taxes? The people in NH and ME love to joke about "Taxachusetts".
reply
jjeffeory @ 6th Aug 03:09PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 04:24PM:
Re: Socialize it!
You're implicitly trying to equate socialism with communism. Let me remind you the two are completely different and have little to no relation to each other.
reply
ScottMo @ 6th Aug 03:13PM:
Re: Ultimatum
On poles the power company connects to it usually jointly owns them (and pays tax on half).
reply
DaveNJ @ 6th Aug 03:14PM:
Re: Verizon should sell off Mass
said by sonicmerlin :
There is no DOCSIS 4...they're *still* working on DOCSIS 3, which can theoretically go up to 1 gbps.
Duh..... Hence by that time.......
reply
TKJunkMail @ 6th Aug 03:15PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by jjeffeory :
You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
True. Those corporations go broke and go out of business or move to Asia.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
anon @ 6th Aug 03:48PM:
Verizon's lack of maintenance on its copper network etc.
If you delve deeply into the rate justification in a telco like Verizon's service you will see that they charge each and every customer for the maintenance and upgrading of their telephone network infrastructure.
In fact every Verizon user already pays every billing cycle for Verizon to maintain and upgrade its network infrastructure. Verizon however does not keep up its end of the bargain and has in Central and Western Massachusetts so neglected the copper infrastructure that it is approaching interoperability (old cables filling with water etc.).
My suggestion is to file a Massachusetts consumer class action law suite for Verizon's malfeasance in its failure to maintain and upgrade its network and properly serve its customers.
If the Massachusetts consumers win, which they may well, and Verizon chooses to sell their Massachusetts network I suggest filing a motion to seize the network for payment of the law suit settlement and operation of the network as a Massachusetts consumer owned non profit cooperative. I bet that would get Verizon's attention.
reply
Ebolla @ 6th Aug 03:50PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :
The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
For the record they DID just raise sales tax, MA also requires all residents to have health insurance or you get a fine. They also are going to cut educational budget. MA is beginning to look like N.Korea...
reply
bicker @ 6th Aug 03:53PM:
Re: call their bluff
I agree that if the people don't like the choices offered they should either provide sufficient incentive for someone to offer what they want, or to, as you suggest, build it themselves with their own (collective) money.
Given that the people of the Commonwealth are disinclined to spend money in that manner, you can read into that that the people of the Commonwealth do not find the threat by Verizon to be a grievous offense, as some here would like folks to consider it.
reply
Big Pete 82 @ 6th Aug 04:09PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by jjeffeory :
You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
In the world of telco's you sure can. When they only ever have one or two competitors, its easy for them to just pass on the tax to their customers. Take a look at your phone bill and look at all the taxes and fees they are passing on to you.
reply
Big Pete 82 @ 6th Aug 04:26PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
You say "free market" like its a bad thing. Last time I walked into a Walmart or Best buy, I could literally see thousands of products from all over the world. You can choose between cheaper products, higher quality products, products made here in the US, products made from all over, all thanks to this terrible "free market."
I work for one of these so called "evil" corporations, and I want it to have all the tax breaks it can, because the more competitive it is, the safer my job is.
Some of you people forget that these companies actually put food on the table for hundreds, even thousands of people just like you and me. Excessive taxation doesn't give them any incentive to stick around the US. In the end, they are providing a product or service to people and giving people jobs, why not allow them to do it in the most competitive way possible?
reply
stephenju @ 6th Aug 04:32PM:
Re: Socialize it!
said by sonicmerlin :
You're implicitly trying to equate socialism with communism. Let me remind you the two are completely different and have little to no relation to each other.
I know they are different. But do the socialists know? :)
reply
KoolMoe @ 6th Aug 04:46PM:
Re: Ultimatum
Poles in question are on public property....already 'seized', eh?
What they should do is not tax VZ, as I agree all such costs are simply passed on the customer, but allow any competitor to use the poles.
So similar to what you said; simply disallow exclusive use of the poles to VZ. It may not make any difference, or it may allow a competitor to start running their own wires...
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential
reply
Murdoc @ 6th Aug 05:19PM:
Make lobbying illegal
Maybe lobbyists and lobbying should be illegal, then maybe alot of stupidity would stop running rampant.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 07:10PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by Big Pete 82 :
You say "free market" like its a bad thing. Last time I walked into a Walmart or Best buy, I could literally see thousands of products from all over the world. You can choose between cheaper products, higher quality products, products made here in the US, products made from all over, all thanks to this terrible "free market."
I work for one of these so called "evil" corporations, and I want it to have all the tax breaks it can, because the more competitive it is, the safer my job is.
Some of you people forget that these companies actually put food on the table for hundreds, even thousands of people just like you and me. Excessive taxation doesn't give them any incentive to stick around the US. In the end, they are providing a product or service to people and giving people jobs, why not allow them to do it in the most competitive way possible?
You're obfuscating the term "free market" with what we have in the telecom industry and what you achieve in an unfettered capitalistic environment. Giant landline incumbents with franchise agreements don't have to worry about foreign competitors like China, Korea, or Japan selling their internet services for much cheaper than they do in the US. The same goes for wireless providers.
Your example of Wal-Mart is misleading, because many of their goods are manufactured and sold as part of an international economy. Telecommunications on the other hand for the most part is highly regionalized.
Indeed, regulation of the telecommunications industry is simply an attempt to fix the industry where it fails to approximate a free market. For example, whereas Wal-Mart has little to no incentive to favor one supplier over the other (besides whoever provides the cheapest prices), incumbent ISPs *do* have an incentive to favor their own provisioned content over competitors. Thus we have a Net Neutrality bill circulating Congress to prevent such anti-competitive behavior from occurring.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 07:11PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by TKJunkMail :said by jjeffeory :
You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
True. Those corporations go broke and go out of business or move to Asia.
Considering the billions in profit Verizon makes each year, and the hundreds of millions in debt it was able to write off with its deal with Fairpoint, and considering they have duopolistic control with AT&T over special access lines through which they can charge artificially marked up prices, I doubt Verizon's going to go broke any time soon.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 06:29PM:
Re: call their bluff
"The people of the Commonwealth" as you so aptly denoted in fact *do* often want to build their own networks. However, as documents in numerous cases on this website and others, incumbents spend a great deal of effort, time, and money on litigation to prevent such municipal or other publicly-funded efforts from going through.
Furthermore, it's impossible for every person in a society to have perfect access to all information (especially when they have no internet access!), so many (older) rural residents don't realize how much their community would benefit from ubiquitous broadband availability.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 07:11PM:
Re: Socialize it!
In fact they do, very much so, but their arguments are often muddled and distorted by the organizational zealotry of the right (*cough* Fox News *cough*).
reply
bicker @ 6th Aug 06:52PM:
Re: call their bluff
I live in the Commonwealth. Where do you live? :uhh:
And just because people are "(older)" and "rural" doesn't mean that they don't have their own, valid perspective regarding the relative value of spending public funds on expanding broadband availability, equally worthy of respect as your own.
reply
nasadude @ 6th Aug 07:08PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
got two words for ya -
Wall Street
reply
jfpatrick @ 6th Aug 07:25PM:
Away with Copper!
Verizon wants out of the copper based phone business period, and will try any way they can to get out of it. When copper breaks, techs are told to repair, not replace the bad copper. I was without phone service back in January of this year for over a month due to an ice storm, and Verizon took a long time to repair things.
As I've heard a number of times, Verizon wants to be a "broadband" company and get out of the land-line phone business.
reply
tmc8080 @ 6th Aug 07:28PM:
Whiny Verizon? Competition sounds good to me.
Open the state to new competitors! Now that DOESN'T necessarily mean a TELCO either, it could just be a cable company other than Time Warner or Comcast... I'd even send form letters out to tier-1 Internet Backbone companies to offer a sweet franchise deal for the state. If done right, it could make hotspots like NYC look like a dialup busy signal.
The number of places VZ can cry wolf now is vastly reduced due to jettisoning piss poor ROI rural and suburb infrastructure within it's old footprint. Don't think the lawyers who put Verizon together from it's former companies weren't thinking about a path to cutting all the "dead wood" out of the company sooner or later, and for the most part, they got/will get their wish.. now hold the company's feet to the fire with the rest!
reply
jfpatrick @ 6th Aug 07:35PM:
Competition
The problem with allowing competition in MA, is every time a cable/phone company wants to setup shop in a City or Town, they have to get approval from EACH City and Town for a franchise. In My City, that took over 2 years for FIOS to come in. Some communities have one cable/phone provider and like it that way, no
competition.
I understand the State of MA wants to take control of this issue and be the one and only agency to determine what community gets cable/phone, but the Cities and Towns are claiming it will take away their "rights" to choose.
reply
RJ44 @ 6th Aug 07:48PM:
Never mind
On second thought I do now wish to post.
reply
Big Pete 82 @ 6th Aug 08:00PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
You're correct in your assessment that what we have in the telecom industry is not "free market." I'm not arguing that it is, I was only trying to point out that the free market is not this evil force that many make it out to be.
The reason the telecom industry is not a true free market is because the government made a conscious decision that everyone should have access to the telephone grid, whether or not you live in BFE Timbuktu or Manhattan. While the gov't helped the telecom build out their networks, they also regulated the hell out of them, and for this reason there are only a few competitors. The same goes for the cable industry and franchise agreements.
In a true free market with far less regulation, there would probably be many more competitors (more choice leads to lower prices), but there would also be a lot more people without access to these services in the most unprofitable areas. These unprofitable areas would be paying more of the true cost for any of the services they do receive.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 6th Aug 08:11PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
ISDN is offered only if they feel like selling it to you. For the most part you can't obtain any ISDN lines from ATT and VZ is on an address by address case.
Basically the PUC took everything from the residents and gave everything to ATT and VZ along with the power companies. They raise rates when they basically want for what ever reason. They add on their bogus "taxes and fees" that seem like they raise every year. ATT is also one of the few companies in Ohio that charges above $2 to pay your bill in person. There were talks in the Ohio market to charge you for paying via phone or online using some system called BillMatrix that First Energy, AEP, and Many other utilities use and collect $3.95 per payment.
reply
Maggs @ 6th Aug 08:27PM:
Re: Cut their franchise agreeements
Some politicians are in fact Johns LOL.
--
Hello, is anyone out there.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 10:58PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by Big Pete 82 :
You're correct in your assessment that what we have in the telecom industry is not "free market." I'm not arguing that it is, I was only trying to point out that the free market is not this evil force that many make it out to be.
The reason the telecom industry is not a true free market is because the government made a conscious decision that everyone should have access to the telephone grid, whether or not you live in BFE Timbuktu or Manhattan. While the gov't helped the telecom build out their networks, they also regulated the hell out of them, and for this reason there are only a few competitors. The same goes for the cable industry and franchise agreements.
In a true free market with far less regulation, there would probably be many more competitors (more choice leads to lower prices), but there would also be a lot more people without access to these services in the most unprofitable areas. These unprofitable areas would be paying more of the true cost for any of the services they do receive.
That's a complete and utter lie. Basically you've looked at the last 8 years of telecom oligopolies spurred on by a pathetically weak, corrupt, and industry-friendly FCC and concluded getting rid of even more regulation would be good for everyone.
It's the equivalent of a man hitting his head on a wall over and over again, and when it hurts deciding to simply hit harder.
The reason the telecommunications market doesn't approximate a free market is because of the huge barrier of entry to such a market. It's incredibly expensive to start a new ISP, especially when there's an incumbent already present. Not only do you need the vast initial capital to build the network, but the customers you want are already paying your competitor and will be incredibly hard to convert.
It's easy for a new competitor to attract the first 10% of the incumbent's customer base. But from then on it's a HUGE struggle for more. Educating consumers on the benefits of your service requires a giant marketing budget, and even then that's often not enough to overcome the inertia most people have when it comes to switching providers.
Your claim that without regulation "unprofitable areas" would pay for the "true cost" is ridiculous. You're making baseless assumptions about the cost of providing internet access to more remote areas. And yet for the last few years almost half of all small, rural telecoms have been building out fiber to their customers. This is without any help from their local or state governments, and they've managed to maintain profitability. Their experiences have also demonstrated that fiber to rural homes is only slightly more expensive than fiber to urban areas, in large part because almost all rural homes are situated right next to a major road.
The whole "expense" argument is tired and pathetic.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 6th Aug 11:26PM:
Re: call their bluff
said by bicker :
I live in the Commonwealth. Where do you live? :uhh:
And just because people are "(older)" and "rural" doesn't mean that they don't have their own, valid perspective regarding the relative value of spending public funds on expanding broadband availability, equally worthy of respect as your own.
The vast majority of the elderly in rural areas don't even know what a "gigabyte" is. They don't understand the business, health, and economic potential ubiquitous broadband can have for their community. This situation is extremely similar to what happened when both electricity and phone lines were first being drawn across the country.
On the other hand, most younger rural residents are quite well-versed with modern computer technology and jargon, and are quite eager (in some cases desperate) for access to high-speed broadband at affordable prices.
Furthermore, demand for broadband is in many cases equivalent to the chicken and egg problem. Until people have access to high-speed internet services and make use of them, and until word-of-mouth then spreads about the utility of such services, the demand will always be lacking.
Australia is the perfect example of this. 70% of internet users there don't even use Youtube. Why? Because the incumbents have utterly crippled the networks there, enforcing paltry caps and *hugely excessive* overcharges.
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Aug 11:14PM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
said by sonicmerlin :
There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
It is hardly irrational because it is a 100% irrefutable fact. It is the economic version of the law of gravity.
And it isn't just taxes, every business expense is recouped from the customer.
said by sonicmerlin :
It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not.
You ignore the fact that a business charges the highest possible price for a given product or service already. If a business raises its prices at this point, it risks losing sales. If sales decline and profit is lost or if after paying the tax there is too little profit (or a loss), the business might decide that providing the given product or service simply isn't worth the money.
Either way, the consumer pays the bill.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
reply
Big Pete 82 @ 7th Aug 01:14AM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
Your claim that without regulation "unprofitable areas" would pay for the "true cost" is ridiculous. You're making baseless assumptions about the cost of providing internet access to more remote areas. And yet for the last few years almost half of all small, rural telecoms have been building out fiber to their customers. This is without any help from their local or state governments, and they've managed to maintain profitability. Their experiences have also demonstrated that fiber to rural homes is only slightly more expensive than fiber to urban areas, in large part because almost all rural homes are situated right next to a major road.
The whole "expense" argument is tired and pathetic.
Baseless, tired, and pathetic arguments? Oh please... Look at Fairpoint and some of these other "rural" broadband providers. They are folding like crazy. Verizon can't sell their rural customers fast enough...You're going to try and convince people that rural broadband is profitable when the government is regulating (capping) how much they can charge? Maybe a few "rural telecoms" can make a small profit in few pockets here and there, but they can't make a living serving only large swaths of rural area. The only one making baseless claims is you, as there is article after article on this blog demonstrating how unprofitable and how costly it is to provide rural broadband. If it was as profitable as you claim there wouldn't be people crying for universal broadband on an almost daily basis.
reply
bicker @ 7th Aug 04:57AM:
Re: Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes
(Sorry for the sarcasm...) Don't confuse the issue with facts! Don't you know that consumerists deserve to have the world handed to them on a platter, forcing some mythical "other" people to pay the bill for them having whatever they want, however they want it, and inexpensively?
reply
bicker @ 7th Aug 05:00AM:
Re: call their bluff
The vast majority of the elderly in rural areas care about a lot of things that you don't care about. The fact that people are different doesn't mean some people (the people you decide) are smart and the other people are dumb. Your assumption of disrespect is the biggest problem with your argument. It's is indefensible.
reply
fenway310 @ 7th Aug 04:37PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
Fios is still rooling out i seen them north attleborough also my sister that lives there got a door tag saying its coming!!!! that was like a week ago
reply
Samsonian @ 7th Aug 06:03PM:
Re: Verizon to Central Mass Drop Dead
I think that's good idea.
They can play "let's make a deal."
Exempt Fiber services from taxes, but not copper. Incentivize them to build out fiber, but don't give them any loopholes.
reply
gt1racer @ 7th Aug 10:28PM:
Monopoly as always!
Gotta love how Fall River in Bristol County is a Monopoly and Fios will probably never come here because they cherry picked through the whole county and rejected us.
reply
calvoiper @ 8th Aug 02:53PM:
Re: Ultimatum
Yes, but to pass these costs along, a landline telco may have to undergo a rate case or similar proceeding.
No big deal in a normal world, but a cardinal rule in these cases is that ALL costs get examined--strangely, utilities always bring up rising costs but forget about dropping costs unless prodded.
What Verizon really wants to avoid is having all of its costs examined, for the regulators may find that -SURPRISE!- in a world of decreasing costs for electronic equipment, some of Verizon's costs may be overstated....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC