RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| What about the money SkiWi acknowledges they owe Qwest
Since SkyWi acknowledges that they owe Qwest some money, have they attempted to pay that amount or place it in escrow pending their case being heard? This action would seem to be something that they could (or rather should) do to prove "good faith" on their part. I mention the escrow method since if Qwest accepted the part payment, it might harm Qwest's claims of being owed more but does allow SkyWi to pay the money that is not in dispute while showing that they did not file the court case just to avoid paying anything while the case is being heard. |
|
cngr96
join:2005-03-05
El Paso, TX
| I have to agree. If I was QWest, I would tell the PUC to either fork over the money owed or go pound sand. The court process does not mean they do not have to pay for services being supplied by QWest, and SkyWi is receiving revenue from it's customers. They even cut the bill in half in an attempt to keep the customers connected, which SkiWi turned down. Looks like a cash flow issue to me. This time, I do not blame QWest for their move. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| said by cngr96  :If I was QWest, I would tell the PUC to either fork over the money owed or go pound sand. They can certainly do that, and still cut SkwWi off if they want. And the PRC can simply tell Qwest "OK, you can no longer provide service to New Mexico, bye - Hello, AT&T, Verizon? Either of you guys wanna use this network?"
It may not be fair, but the PRC makes the rules. |
|
cngr96
join:2005-03-05
El Paso, TX | QWest is not been sucked up by the big Bells because there is too much geopgraphy and not as many subscribers. For New Mexico to replace QWest with some other would be almost impossible... Maybe Timewarner, Comcast??? LOL |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| New Mexico is probably not one of the markets that wouldn't be purchased. The areas the other Telco's don't want is Montana (one of the nations largest states with the smallest population), Idaho, Wyoming and probably Nevada as well. Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona would probably be sold rather easily if Qwest was interested in piecing out the company.
Verizon has already offered to buy the more populated states from Qwest. I believe their offer was for Washington, Oregon, Arizona and Colorado. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Lets see if I have this right...
... You're a competative ISP running your system wholesale through your big boy provider.
You run a business model that is completely unsustainable. (often called a ponzi-scheme)
The time comes where the economy slows down and your scheme starts to rear it's head.
You know you can't pay your bill so you call foul of your big boy provider, in this case, Qwest. You claim anti-competition in court and get a restraining order so they can't pull the plug on you pending a court case.
You HOPE, and knowingly abuse the court systems, to keep yourself a-float during this mess ALL while calling attention to your bran using free marketing such as the news to get your name out in front of people. (Always happens in big cases against a known name, like Qwest)
You owe money, you don't pay your bill and that convenient and inexpensive court case keeps your service running when you can't pay your bill.
Not only do you NOT pay the disputed amount, you pay NOTHING of what you owe and yet your service remains on.
.... ALL with out the use of bankruptcy!
I love the country we live in!
This is just my take on what I see happening here.. doesn't mean it is, but it's how *I* see it.
Personally, I don't think that Qwest should have had to restore the service so long as any of the un-disputed portion remains unpaid. The order to restore service, irregardless of what the other party claims, in my view, is a great abuse of power and authority. Qwest should have every right to disrupt service service until the base fees have been paid promptly. |
|
cngr96
join:2005-03-05
El Paso, TX | You forgot one thing, they are still receiving revenue for their customers... To use for court. LOL |
|
cngr96
join:2005-03-05
El Paso, TX
| reply to rahvin112
Re: What about the money SkiWi acknowledges they owe Qwest
If QWest sold off the portions that the others want, they would not survive as those few big markets supple the needed cash to subsidize the other operations, which would go dark within a year. QWest is small, they cannot keep running when their customers do not pay them. They had no choice here and the PUC should be going after SkiWi, oh but SkiWi is not regulated by the PUC, QWest is screwed! |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to cngr96
Re: Lets see if I have this right...
said by cngr96 :You forgot one thing, they are still receiving revenue for their customers... To use for court. LOL You're absolutely right.
And mind you, the big boys play their own games by their own rules and terms.. so I guess fair is fair when the little guys use similar tactics. |
|
dslrus
join:2008-01-03
Saint Paul, MN
| reply to PolarBear
Re: What about the money SkiWi acknowledges they owe Qwest
said by PolarBear :said by cngr96 :If I was QWest, I would tell the PUC to either fork over the money owed or go pound sand. They can certainly do that, and still cut SkwWi off if they want. And the PRC can simply tell Qwest "OK, you can no longer provide service to New Mexico, bye - Hello, AT&T, Verizon? Either of you guys wanna use this network?" It may not be fair, but the PRC makes the rules. You really think geographically AT&T or Verizon wants New Mexico? |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | No. My point was simply that if Qwest defies the PRC, the PRC has the power to punish them. |
|
alexintexas
join:2003-01-11
San Antonio, TX
clubs:
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
| The good ole USA or is it USC??
seriously, have any of you read their agreements?
in most business agreements
1. gives up rights to trial but to the opposing companies attribution court
2. any disputed amount MUST be paid then goto an attribution hearing which most should know WILL side with the other (Qwest).
so you would own a company that you get services from
1. that company says you owe $1.7 million
2. due to agreements this amount must be paid in full even if any amount is in dispute.
3. you know this is not possible to pay, also knowing you dont owe this amount.
4. if any amount is paid you are agreeing to the charges, even if any amount is in dispute.
5. you cant file a case in court due to an agreement to fight and or settle in attribution
6. what is this companies alternatives???
pay the supposedly $1.7 million owed, then try going to attribution court chosen by in this case Qwest? and forced into bankruptcy.
or in this companies case they found a life line in invoking the Clayton Act and RICO statutes. to in turn get a fair chance in court. not in Qwests court.
is SkyWi in the right? yes
is Qwest in the right? HELL NO
when SkWi says openly "they" owe monies to Qwest but no where near $1.7 million why would they lie?
its not like Qwest has the grail of billing systems more so if Qwest wants out or is want to resolve agreements or force bankruptcy. Qwest is loosing nothing in this case.
it looks to me they are directly disrupting a business that competes on its on backyard that being (INTERNET SERVICES)
but Qwest refuses to build WiFI to compete, but SkWi is interfering with Qwest profits on (INTERNET SERVICES). Humm 
has anyone EVER been in an attribution hearing? chosen by the opposing side. |
|
TFK57
Premium
join:2008-10-27
Crofton, MD | SkyWi
The subsidiary's of SkyWi is the issue. They were creating subs of there own. The 2 mil owed was just good excuse. |
|
NM
@comcast.net
| OneConnect and Zianet...
After reading all of your responses, I would have to agree most with fiberguy.
I am a resident and small WISP owner in Las Cruces, New Mexico. I have experienced first hand what this blackout has caused and what led up to it. I have done business with SkyWi (OneConnectIP and Zianet) and know the basic operation of their business.
First, the issue with SkyWi not paying their bill is completely the faults of OneConnect IP and Zianet. One connect sells VOIP services, Zianet sells the DSL, and SkyWi sells the wireless. SkyWi was acquired in September of 2008 by OneConnect and Zianet.
It seems to me that the funds that they would have used to pay their Qwest bill was used in the acquisition of SkyWi. The UNDISPUTED amount that was due to Qwest was from September services.
I have service with Qwest Wholesale (the same company that SkyWi deals with), when there is a dispute you do NOT have to pay the balance that is in dispute. But in order to not have the account terminated you need to file a DISPUTE order and pay the amount that is not in dispute. SkyWi failed to file a DISPUTE order and didn't pay a dime to Qwest. I see nothing wrong with Qwest turning the services off and I think Qwest had every right to turn the services off. I think the services should remain off until the undisputed balance is paid.
I do not agree with the PRC discussion on having Qwest restore the services to SkyWi. First, how can the PRC regulate OneConnect, SkyWi, and Zianet when they only provide internet services. The PRC does NOT regulate the internet. Why is the PRC even involved? If SkyWi offered analog telephone voice lines those could be regulated but not internet type services.
NO customers (VOIP or internet) were notified by SkyWi that this could happen. Lots of customers phones were not even forwarded to a working number. This left a lot of businesses and residents without dialtone from their voip lines. Atleast, SkyWi should have proactively notified their customers IN ADVANCE since they knew this could happen since they didn't pay their bill.
All I am saying is that I think that the PRC should not have stepped in and SkyWi needs to read their contact with Qwest again about DISPUTES and LATE PAYMENTS. |
|
Se77vN
join:2006-02-19
Las Cruces, NM
| But SkiWi provided digital phone service
Someone asked how can the PRC intervene in an internet service? Well that internet serice is used for phone and that puts the whole thing right under the PRC's regulation charter especially as vital services like 911, hospitals, and government offices access were cut off in some areas.
Furthermore it is not just the New Mexico PRC that have issues with Qwest's antics. The Nebraska Public Service Commission just won a suit against Qwest in U.S District Court regarding how much Qwest can charge companies like Cox communications. Then there is a that lawsuit regarding US West retirement benefits and the Seattle lawsuit regarding Qwest's early termination fee.
And let's not forget the $40 million Qwest added to the $400 million award regarding securities fraud to try and end that mess.
Let's face it Qwest really messed up on how that handled this. Even without a list Qwest could have sent all their customers a notice that there were issues with SkiWi and possible cut off of service. |
|
