major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Correction
Legislators frequently don't understand what the bills even do but are easily lured by promises of inexpensive TV service that never comes. but pass the bills anyway, and, then proceed to collect their bribes campaign contributions accordingly. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
1 edit | Call their bluff, and call comcast and Tw
I have had it with Verizon, Give the cables statewide agreements and when Verizon figures out its not he only guy out there, there will come around. |
|
MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| Why should local governments have this power?
It seems to me that most utilities are regulated at the state level. I am not sure that most local governments have the expertise or time to negotiate the complex (far more complex than they should be) agreements. It really annoys me when the local governments squeeze the cable or telco companies for items completely unrelated to cable TV. Or even related to cable TV.
I think every state should regulate cable tv just as they do power and water. It would give the companies consistency. The state PUC could set rules that are fair to everyone. They would have the scope and power to at least understand what they are signing.
In the end, there is no magic solution that will make everything wonderful. But, I think common statewide standards would be a step in the right direction. |
|
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
| Cherry Picking
"Ellem M. Cummings, a spokeswoman for Verizon, said that with the struggling economy, the company has to choose where to commit its financial resources."
Which means, I take it, Massachusetts had better play ball with them, or they may wind up like Indiana, Oregon and Washington- dumped by Verizon so they can offer their product to more profitable customers.
Everybody with Verizon better watch out, or there's no telling what you'll lose.
Mark F. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05 | Private Business = Bad on DSLR
Is that really news? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
 ·Qwest.net
 ·magicjack.com
 ·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Mark F
Re: Cherry Picking
Who would VZ sell MA to? Frontier and FairPoint are already gonna buckle under the weight, or are buckling, with their new territories. If Verizon sold their Mass. network to Windstream or the new Embarq/CenturyTel merged entity, those providers wouldn't find it hard to wire up areas competitively since they're used to working in rural areas. They probably won't deploy 20 Mbit upload speeds, but fiber wouldn't be out of the question.
If Verizon insists on cherry picking markets, take away the USF, and take away all access lines (for a nominal fee) that don't have HSI right now. Show them who paid for those lines...taxpayers...and taxpayers can reallocate them to someone who will actually provide service to everyone. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to MichaelWacey
Re: Why should local governments have this power?
said by MichaelWacey  :It seems to me that most utilities are regulated at the state level. I think every state should regulate cable tv just as they do power and water. The state PUC could set rules that are fair to everyone. They would have the scope and power to at least understand what they are signing. And the legislators don't have to do what Verizon wants. They could actually do what they are elected for - represent the voters. But will they do that? Until voters actually show some interest and throw the bums from office, the voters get what they deserve. Ultimately it falls on them for being stupid.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| reply to MichaelWacey
said by MichaelWacey :It seems to me that most utilities are regulated at the state level. I am not sure that most local governments have the expertise or time to negotiate the complex (far more complex than they should be) agreements. It really annoys me when the local governments squeeze the cable or telco companies for items completely unrelated to cable TV. Or even related to cable TV. I think every state should regulate cable tv just as they do power and water. It would give the companies consistency. The state PUC could set rules that are fair to everyone. They would have the scope and power to at least understand what they are signing. In the end, there is no magic solution that will make everything wonderful. But, I think common statewide standards would be a step in the right direction. Many towns in MA have their own muni water or electrical company and some have their own cable ISP.
--
"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 |
|
John_W
Premium
join:2000-04-25
Worcester, MA
clubs:
·Vonage
| reply to Tarheels Fan
Re: Private Business = Bad on DSLR
I know. This has been kicking around for a while now. Verizon flexed their muscles a few years ago and ended all FIOS intalls and expansion in the state and refused to start back up again until they got their way.
I can see VZ's point of view. They were having to negotiate with each and every town. Some towns were requiring that VZ build playgrounds and other unrelated crazy things before they would sign any contract with them.
But at least the towns were forcing VZ to install throughout the entire town instead of only profitable areas.
--
Team Discovery--BBR Team Helix--Cuz I Care!! |
|
Aron5
@conversent.net
| Serve ALL of your customers
"In Western Mass., still using dial-up"
Boston Globe
April 29, 2007
While legislators are trying to make sure Verizon deploys the next generation of technology in the Eastern part of the
state, towns all over W estern Massachusetts are still waiting for Verizon to deploy last-generation technology
("Verizon is pressured on network ," April 21 ). We are still using 56K dial-up modems (remember those?) and waiting
to get the DSL lines that Eastern Massachusetts has had for more than a decade. But we do agree with our friends in
the Eastern part of the state, that Verizon should start serving its customers -- all of them -- before it gets any
additional perks.
Aron P. Goldman
Shutesbury |
|
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to iansltx
Re: Cherry Picking
That's what I'm afraid of, that after having FIOS for almost two years (and loving it), Frontier will take over Verizon's TV and internet operations in our area and find they've bitten off more than they can chew.
And, we'll wind up paying more for less.
FIOS is so popular that it seems like everyone wants it (but not everyone can have it or keep it), which puts Verizon in a good position to get what they want.
Mark F. |
|
jmmilner
join:2001-11-20
Yorkville, IL
| reply to John_W
Re: Private Business = Bad on DSLR
Funny how when a city that has an upscale customer base wants to dictate terms to VZ (be it broadcasting the city council meeting or building something the city wants, e.g. a park) it is bad, but when VZ wants to bypass whole cities or just the poor side of town it is all good. Both the cities and VZ are doing the same thing, optimizing their side of the deal. As for moving the whole process to the state level, both VZ and most state representatives are doing the same thing, optimizing the exchange of campaign contributions by cutting out all the local politicians.
All this reminds me of Ameritech's efforts to get state-wide regulation in Illinois (they had cable ops back then) before they'd roll out ISDN (Project Pronto) - you can guess who won and what didn't happen next. |
|
cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| more = better?
Wow, this is great. Instead of having one bad choice for cable TV, you can now have two worse choices! And if you don't live in a wealthy area, you're screwed now because no build-out requirements.
But of course more choices is always better! |
|
Bsver
@verizon.net
| Verizon sucks
I would like those anxious to protect their VIOS to consider for a moment that some of is in our highly taxed and highly regulated state still are relegated to dial-up. And, with Verizon as our only phone option, when the service goes out as it frequently does, there is no cell back-up. Verizon sucks, and they are crooks. |
|
pdBerg
@att.net
| reply to MichaelWacey
Re: Why should local governments have this power?
Michael,
Would you want Starbucks to open a cafe in town hall without paying the town rent? I think not. Cable company fees to local municipalities are "rent" for their uses of the public right-of-way. PROW fees have long been the rule in the cable TV industry, and they make sense because the usage of PROW's in each community differ, and one size does not fit all.
Cable TV is not a "utility" -- that is, something vital for the public necessity and convenience. It is a private entertainment service. I do not believe cable TV operator regulation should be something paid for by all taxpayers, but only by cable subscribing residents.
pdBerg |
|
Urban Myth
@att.net
| reply to John_W
Re: Private Business = Bad on DSLR
Your tale about VZ being required to "build playgrounds" is a completely false, urban myth -- circulated primarily by Verizon "astroturf" groups fronting for the company.
requirements on cable TV operators are essentially rent on the public rights of way they use to make private profit -- like rent for Starbucks in a city hall space. |
|
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | reply to Bsver
Re: Verizon sucks
And yet you post from verizon.net. If there isn't anyone but Verizon then shouldn't your town be working to get competition in? |
|
Phil Santoro
@bellatlantic.COM
| No threats
Despite the antiquated TV franchising process in Massachusetts that was designed more than 30 years ago for cable monopolies, Verizon continues to invest heavily in building its all-fiber broadband network in the Bay State. We invested more than $600 million last year and will approximate that this year. We are the largest private investor in the state. In Massachusetts, Verizon must compete with other states for capital dollars to expand our all-fiber network. The TV franchising process in many other states make them more attractive places to invest. I can assure you that a streamlined franchise process has resulted in a reduction in cable rates in other states. Before Verizon came to town, you never saw cable companies offering $99 Triple Play packages, discounts, or cut-rate deals to hang on to customers. And cable companies did receive one very special privilege when they began – a monopoly. All anyone has to do is talk to someone who has switched from cable to Verizon to see just how competition has benefitted consumers. The “cherry picking” accusation against Verizon that originates from the cable monopolies is getting old. Verizon offers all its services to communities of all demographics and we build out the entire community. Bottom line—no one has threatened anyone and Verizon continues to invest heavily in Massachusetts.
Phil Santoro
Verizon Media Relations
Boston |
|
Robert Heller
@localnet.com
| reply to Pathfinder
Re: Verizon sucks
Competition would be *wonderful*, but right now Verizon has a legal monopoly on the 'last mile' of POTS (Plain Ordinary Telephone Service). The cable companies in the area are not going to run their services due to poor ROI (too few houses per road mile, and many already have Satellite TV). The Cell companies face problems with ROI issues (to small a population density) *and* anti-Cell tower sentiment. Verizon also goes out of its way to kill any competition, often by offering cut-rate (low-end) DSL at *below* cost as a "lost leader" (probably a technical violation of anti-trust laws).
The few local COLACs don't have the capital to string fiber on their own, they can only rent Verizon's infrastructure (copper cables full of water and roadside boxes full of snakes -- I kid you not!) and are beholden to Verizon (who has a history of screwing with competing 'local' carriers).
At this point only the state or federal government can really do anything about this. The state regulatory agency is looking at opening a *regional* investigation on Verizon's maintenance and service practices in Western Mass. It is almost certain that there will be an investigation and things in fact look bad for Verizon. I really hope Verizon does get raked over the coals -- they really do deserve it! Locally, Verizon is a most *hated* company. Unfortunately we are all stuck with Verizon. And that sucks. |
|
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·DIRECTV
| Quote from Karl's post
"While local towns and cities sometimes make carriers jump through hoops (something played up to great effect by AT&T/Verizon fan Kevin Martin during his tenure), tough local regulators are the reason cable TV and broadband is available to huge swaths of rural America. Cable operators got no such special privileges when they were deploying coaxial to these markets. "
Karl, I'm confused by this. Contradictory point on cable, seems to me. Could you, or someone else, please explain this a little more?
"cable TV and broadband is available to huge swaths of rural America." Then, "Cable operators got no such privilegs when they were deploying coaxial to these markets." ?! |
|
