how-to block ads
North Andover, MA
|reply to MadMANN3 |
They have a fiduciary responsibility to their stakeholders to do anything within the law to increase profits, of which state or national franchising would undoubtedly. Until that time, they are following current law. It's perfectly reasonable, and ridiculous to complain about. They can still "redline" with local franchising, they just have to cut out whole towns, instead of the unprofitable parts, so all it does it make bigger holes. Since they're building the entire network with 100% private investment, they can darn well do as they please, and, in fact, if I were a shareholder, I'd be pissed if they were wasting money they could be dividending back to me building fiber networks where people can't afford to use them.
said by Ahrenl:That statement right there proves that local franchising needs to stay. There are a lot of areas that cable cos HAD to build to and "waste money" on because the locals made it so that if they wanted to build their system in their area, they had to service the lower class and rural customers as well.
Since they're building the entire network with 100% private investment, they can darn well do as they please, and, in fact, if I were a shareholder, I'd be pissed if they were wasting money they could be dividending back to me building fiber networks where people can't afford to use them.
Don't you think that companies like Adelphia, Time Warner, or Comcast have stockholders to cater to as well? But they already built their systems according to those laws. How is it fair that another company can come in and just say, "Well, we are not going to service this lower class area because they obviously aren't going to pay their bill." That's called cherry-picking and it was illegal for all of the other companies to do it, so why should it be legal for Verizon? They are asking for special treatment so they can just come in and build to the parts of the communities that THEY think should have it.
By the way, these are the same laws that, when they were Bell Atlantic, they tried to keep on the books because it served their own interests at the time. They actually tried to keep telephone competition out of their areas.
So now the tide has turned and they have changed their tune to satisfy their own wants. If they want to build their system to provide competition, then let them. But keep a level playing field and do it under the same laws that every other company had to adhere to.
If want to talk about being pissed as a stockholder, try to be a Pennsylvania taxpayer who got robbed by this very company when my state granted them a couple of hundred million dollars in grants and tax breaks so they would agree to build this exact service ten+ years ago, only for them to not deliver the goods. If anything, they should be forced to rebate every taxpayer in the state that STOLEN money before they are allowed to build one strand in PA.
North Andover, MA
Sorry for being so tardy in my reply.
I wasn't arguing weather local franchising should stay, just that it is the companies duty to fight anything that erodes their profit stream.
"Cherry-picking" is NOT illegal. It is just a breach of local franchising contracts, which have repercussions.
Frankly the difference for the Fiber build out is that it is a premium service that has a lower cost service (DSL), that is in place, which is more likely to be used by those who are ultra price sensitive. Now if local communities want to try and force these companies to build out to these people, who may not be able to afford it, anyway; well then Verizon will need to perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it's financially worth it to service the entire area at all. Being someone who can afford it, and living in a relatively affluent area, I'd be really pissed if Verizon skipped my area because the local government decided that the mandated low-income housing area needed to be served, even though they can't afford digital cable, forget internet.