 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Find someone better? ...says a spokesman for the mayor's office. "But we've had this exemption in place for more than 90 years and western Massachusetts still doesn't have broadband in place."
Pretty much says it all right there?
Massachusetts should look for other companies who may be willing to build-out fiber in their state. Setup a state-wide franchise system but DON'T award it to Verizon, as long as there's some other company willing to wire the state.
If VZ wants to ditch that whole state, fine. Mass should realize the power they have as a 6 million-strong consumer population.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | agreed. it's time for at least ONE state to stand up to bullying tactics by Verizon. maybe Massachusetts will be the one... |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:Massachusetts should look for other companies who may be willing to build-out fiber in their state. Setup a state-wide franchise system but DON'T award it to Verizon, as long as there's some other company willing to wire the state. That is the problem with the statewide franchise model. Every model bill being floated includes no provision for denying a franchise (some do not even include the bare minimum requirements that the company be financially and technically capable of deploying service).
Someone like you or me could form a company tomorrow with no financial backing and no experiencing running a cable company and get a statewide franchise if some of these bills pass (and most are going to pass).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| We can deny the franchise locally but the ONE time someone did the DTE over ruled them as half the members of the DTE board were Verizon lackeys. |
|
 BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY
1 edit | reply to KoolMoe
Unfortunately, something like 5.7 of that is all in Boston. Most of Western Massachusetts is a desolate wasteland, so it's no surprise that Verizon wouldn't want to invest there (I probably wouldn't either). That said, with all the DSLAM equipment they're moving out of Boston, at least they could give them DSL and make use of the old equipment.
--
Cheers,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to KoolMoe
It's not that easy.
The cable companies don't pay this tax ! Why should verizon !
I dread the day I voted for Deval Patrick. This dumb ass and mumbles are driving our state and area into the ground.
You can't afford to breathe around here before they tax you.
These taxes and the must have health insurance is a joke. My pay don't increase to help me with this must have crap. If I am barely getting by on my checks as it is now in this hell hole how will I get by when the "fine" me for not having health care?
I want to know why comcast isn't getting hit and why every company using those poles aren't.
You can't only tax the big guys , it has to be fair.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by BosstonesOwn:It's not that easy. The cable companies don't pay this tax ! Why should verizon I want to know why comcast isn't getting hit and why every company using those poles aren't. It looks like the loophole only applies to telephone companies, not to cable companies or utility companies.
So yes, cable companies would already be paying the tax. The other utility companies are definitely already paying the property tax.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| reply to marigolds
So the consumer could speak with their wallet. What's the problem with that? |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to marigolds
Nope read it again.
Some utilities and some cable co's pay. But some are not paying.
So make it even or don't tax on it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:So the consumer could speak with their wallet. What's the problem with that? The main problem is that it makes deceptive practice very easy. Since there are numerous legal protections for cable companies in place (on the assumption that they would protect their franchise), it is easier than it is in most companies to pull off fraud against a consumer. Just look at how many of the violations in the Rigas case were dependent on Adelphia being a public company. The feasibility requirement is the main protection the consumer has against a fly by night cable company setting up a false front, collecting install fees, and then collapsing without providing service.
The key for the consumer will obviously be to only go with known names.
That is only the most blatent barebones type of fraud though that can be carried out. Another problem with the current state franchise model is that it allows unregulated transfer of a company. Fortunately the SEC can cover some of the really disasterous problems that can arise there, but you are still talking about some pretty significant fiscal deregulation considering the type of industry involved.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:said by BosstonesOwn:It's not that easy. The cable companies don't pay this tax ! Why should verizon I want to know why comcast isn't getting hit and why every company using those poles aren't. It looks like the loophole only applies to telephone companies, not to cable companies or utility companies. So yes, cable companies would already be paying the tax. The other utility companies are definitely already paying the property tax. After doing some checking up, the loophole definitely applies only to telephone companies. In a court case involving RCN, RCN was denied the ability to use the property tax loophole.
But... a cable company can transfer their assets to the right type of company and claim the loophole. In their case though, the loophole applies only on overhead wires over public roads (not wires over private roads) and they must carry at least one phone call. For phone companies, the exemption can apply to a much wider range of property (as demonstrated below). Other companies get the exemption on the wires, telephone companies get the exemption on wires, poles, and related machinery.
In response, Verizon, MCI, Sprint, and AT&T transfered all of their Massachusetts real property to qualifying "telephone and telegraph" companies. In Verizon's case, they transferred all of their physical assets to a Bermuda-based telephone and telegram company and reduced it's property tax bill from $3 million to $9,307. Sprint transferred its real property including all of its telecommunications switchs in Massachusetts to two Delaware based paper company that qualifies under the law.
There are other companies that also receive the exemption: banks, certain manufacturers, and software companies.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to marigolds
All good points. The thing to keep in mind with all this franchise reform is that we're going to have to live with these decisions for a long, long time, so we better make sure we're aware of those long-term effects. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:Nope read it again. Some utilities and some cable co's pay. But some are not paying. So make it even or don't tax on it. I think the idea is to make it even by completely removing the exemption for everyone. Which means that phone companies would get socked the worst since they are taking the most advantage of the current loophole.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
 KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL | reply to marigolds
Wouldn't it be cheaper for Verizon to just avoid loophooles altogether? I mean, really, that -has- to add a lot of miles to their deployment to add all those loops.  
More seriously, I say let 'em go...maybe the lawmakers can focus on better consumer protection instead of knuckling under to the 'big boys'. (anti-fraud startups as mentioned earlier, etc...)
--
'The tighter the RIAA squeezes their grip, the more stars and systems will slip through their fingers.'
Member of the Official AnarchistTelecommunications(&)Terrorists bashing club. |
|
 jonezGot Anime?Premium
join:2004-09-24
Stow, MA | reply to BloodRoses
said by BloodRoses:Unfortunately, something like 5.7 of that is all in Boston. Most of Western Massachusetts is a desolate wasteland, so it's no surprise that Verizon wouldn't want to invest there (I probably wouldn't either). That said, with all the DSLAM equipment they're moving out of Boston, at least they could give them DSL and make use of the old equipment. Firstly, I resent your comment about western mass, most of western mass is very beautiful, it's a nicer 'wasteland' than new york. Secondly, they aren't moving any DSLAM equipment from boston, they haven't even touched boston yet...maybe some of the cities and towns closer, but definitely not boston. Thirdly, they don't move the DSLAM equipment out of a CO when they upgrade it for FIOS, (or atleast my installer told me.) If they did, how are those who are still on dsl and don't want to move to fios going to keep their dsl service?
Posting on something you know little about (or seemingly know little about) doesn't make you look too smart.
--
My diet is highly composed of FIBER!
Massachusetts FIOS Map |
|
radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA | reply to KoolMoe
Massachusetts being New England is waiting for the technology follow-on to fiber! No sense investing too early in broadband. |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by radam:Massachusetts being New England is waiting for the technology follow-on to fiber! No sense investing too early in broadband. You would be stunned to find out how true that is...
--
A is A |
|
| reply to BloodRoses
There are companies in Western Mass making money, like
»www.crocker.com/index.php?f_page···_company |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe: Massachusetts should look for other companies who may be willing to build-out fiber in their state. Setup a state-wide franchise system but DON'T award it to Verizon, as long as there's some other company willing to wire the state. Verizon should lump Massachusetts in with the Vermont, New Hampshire and Main deal. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Oh please. Eastern Mass is one of Verizon's biggest cash cows. Its occasionally been the wealthiest metro area on the face of the earth, and still ranks in the top 10. Why would they lump it in with ME,VT and NH? |
|
