dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2632
share rss forum feed


POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

Hello and Welcome to 2001

The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television.
Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here...

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

said by POB:

The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television.
Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here...
Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible. The Tampa lawyer Smith first claims that the FCC made false accusations... then practically admits those claims are true later in the article. The city submitted a $13 million dollar "wish list" that included video cameras for a school math tutor program; Smith claims it wasn't necessarily a demand... but why submit this "wish list" during franchise negotiations if it wasn't?

Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not.


POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

said by dynodb:

Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise?
Yes, really. Conduct a quick due diligence on all things telco shills do for their masters. A multibillion dollar telco corporation like Verizon getting something for nothing is nothing new. It's SOP. Just take a good look at the recent mega merger of Bellsouth and AT&T. Martin did everything in his power except blow the panel of judges to facilitate and otherwise ensure that merger went through without any sort of oversight or accountability whatsoever.
--
The Toll


dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

And just what was the something they got for nothing? Permission for the merger to go through? Do you really think that it's not costing SBC and AT&T anything to go through the approval process? If so, you'd be very, very wrong.

SBC is paying $16 billion to buy AT&T, it's not as if the government is buying it for them. Even if it were the case that they were "getting something for nothing", it doesn't excuse the kind of legalized extortion that cities like Tampa engage in just to allow a provider to do business in their town.



package

@lsllp.com
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

said by POB:

The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television.
Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here...
Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible. The Tampa lawyer Smith first claims that the FCC made false accusations... then practically admits those claims are true later in the article. Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not.
Yea, headline unfairly labels the link "made up stories entirely" when that clearly isn't the case. I am all for bashing the telcos when it's warranted, which is often enough that you don't have to ... errr... make it up.


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible....Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not.
Did you read the article?

"Oddly enough, Verizon mentions the tangle with Tampa in its comments with the FCC, but does not name the city nor does it reference the math program. It did, however, revise its comments and apologize after a complaint from Tampa about how the company represented the negotiations"

If the FCC is so 'credible', why did Verizon apologize to Tampa?

Why didn't the FCC do some cursory investigation to find out if any of the local franchise allegations were true?

Why did the FCC take the telcos at their word, apparently?

Franchise negotiations always start with the 'wish list', the provider says no, nothing, and you end up with something in between. That's why they're called 'negotiations'.


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

Even if it were the case that they were "getting something for nothing", it doesn't excuse the kind of legalized extortion that cities like Tampa engage in just to allow a provider to do business in their town.
...and where is the PROOF of this 'legalize extortion'?

Every time the telcos have to provide actual, real life examples, they can't do so.

If the process is so bad, why did Verizon's president say "local franchising wasn't holding them back"?


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Keep in mind, once the franchise system is shifted from the local to state level and we kill off these evil town leaders trying to improve their municipalities, you'll see competitive Utopia where the telcos and cable companies offer triple play services for $20 monthly. Why must you impede progress so?



jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17

said by Karl Bode:

Keep in mind, once the franchise system is shifted from the local to state level and we kill off these evil town leaders trying to improve their municipalities, you'll see competitive Utopia where the telcos and cable companies offer triple play services for $20 monthly. Why must you impede progress so?


Well, like you said elsewhere, I wonder who is going to be the 'bad man' when the telcos get their way with franchising and rollouts still aren't happening.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to jslik

said by jslik:

...and where is the PROOF of this 'legalize extortion'?

Every time the telcos have to provide actual, real life examples, they can't do so.

If the process is so bad, why did Verizon's president say "local franchising wasn't holding them back"?
I thought that the proof was evident in the article, along with the many other examples of municipalities demanding large sums of money, equipment and free programming.

Being the free market type I'd largely disagree, but I can at least respect the argument that the city has an interest in demanding service guarantees, universal deployment and reimbursement for use of right of way.

However, they go far beyond that- they're demanding percentages of revenue and money for everything from trucks to video cameras to free public access channels before they'll allow a provider to offer service in their town.

I see no difference there than the hypothetical example of a hardware store being told that before they can open for business, they have to give the city free tools, yard supplies and a truck to haul them in for the city maintance department on top of the property taxes and license fees that other businesses have to pay.

Those costs have to be passed on to customers (businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them from their customers), and the added expense discourages competition since it's that much more expensive to provide service in a new area.


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17

1 edit

said by dynodb:

I thought that the proof was evident in the article, along with the many other examples of municipalities demanding large sums of money, equipment and free programming.
...other examples that either weren't true, or in Tampa's case, Verizon retracted. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

said by dynodb:

However, they go far beyond that- they're demanding percentages of revenue and money for everything from trucks to video cameras to free public access channels before they'll allow a provider to offer service in their town.

I see no difference there than the hypothetical example of a hardware store being told that before they can open for business, they have to give the city free tools, yard supplies and a truck to haul them in for the city maintance department on top of the property taxes and license fees that other businesses have to pay.

Those costs have to be passed on to customers (businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them from their customers), and the added expense discourages competition since it's that much more expensive to provide service in a new area.
Your example leaves out one very important fact: Your hardware store is built on public land.

As a renter, you should expect to pay rent, should you not? You don't expect the landlord to give you your space rent free, even though your rent will be passed on to your customers? Why should any government be any different with land owned by the taxpayers?

Futhermore, all those so-called 'extras' are specifically allowed under federal law.

Also, if you weren't paying franchise fees, you still would be paying them in higher rates. All the providers factor in fees in their pricing, so you'll pay them to your city or to the company, take your pick. Just look at cable modem franchise fees if you don't believe me.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to jslik

said by jslik:

said by dynodb:

Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible....Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not.
Did you read the article?

"Oddly enough, Verizon mentions the tangle with Tampa in its comments with the FCC, but does not name the city nor does it reference the math program. It did, however, revise its comments and apologize after a complaint from Tampa about how the company represented the negotiations"

If the FCC is so 'credible', why did Verizon apologize to Tampa?
They revised their complaint after the city of Tampa- the one's with the power to approve or deny Verizon's right to do business in the city- complained. I think that Verizon's incentive to back down is rather clear.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to package

Happens all too often on BBR. Perhaps the FCC simply made a mistake in the way the represented the issue, though Tampa's $13 million dollar "wish list" sounds like extortion to me.

In any case, the version told by the FCC ceratainly wasn't a "made up" story by any honest point of view. That is my main objection, but lately such deliberate misrepresentation seems to occur on an almost daily with BBR front page articles.

Of course such misrepresentations and dishonesty will always be met with cheers by the "fight the power" crowd, but the lack of objectivity remains.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

4 edits

quote:
That is my main objection, but lately such deliberate misrepresentation seems to occur on an almost daily with BBR front page articles.
Your claims of factual error are dissected in the other thread. Not only by me, but by someone intimately familiar with the franchise negotiation process.

Let's save time, and I'll direct you to where you can find the kind of "objective" information you're looking for:

»www.qwest.com/about/media/pressroom/