dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Um... so what? The state is talking about a tax increase of $50 million dollars a year on land-based services- of course Verizon is going to fight back.
I fail to see where they're asking for "special treatment" or "corporate welfare"; just the ability to deploy without new taxes or having to negotiate terms with dozens of different municipalities. It would be much different if they were asking for a state grant or something.
I don't understand how so many people complain about their FIOS deployment being too slow or lack of complete broadband coverage, but in favor of almost any and all regulatory and financial obstacles to doing so. | |
|
 | | Re: Um... so what? If they'd half their CEO's $109 million pay, they could afford it. I shed no tears for Verizon. | |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17
1 edit | said by dynodb: I don't understand how so many people complain about their FIOS deployment being too slow or lack of complete broadband coverage, but in favor of almost any and all regulatory and financial obstacles to doing so. Then tell Verizon to get its story straight. Either local franchising isn't a problem or it is. Don't change your tune depending on who the audience is. | |
|
 | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Um... so what? said by jslik:said by dynodb: I don't understand how so many people complain about their FIOS deployment being too slow or lack of complete broadband coverage, but in favor of almost any and all regulatory and financial obstacles to doing so. Then tell Verizon to get its story straight. Either local franchising isn't a problem or it is. Don't change your tune depending on who the audience is. Except they didn't say that local franchising wasn't a problem- the article was about their pursuit of national franchising. That they'd still deploy under local franchising schemes doesn't imply that they don't pose a significant problem. | |
|
| | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Um... so what? said by dynodb: Except they didn't say that local franchising wasn't a problem- the article was about their pursuit of national franchising. That they'd still deploy under local franchising schemes doesn't imply that they don't pose a significant problem. Beg to differ...
»telephonyonline.com/home/news/ve···_092706/
"Obtaining local franchises instead has not limited the pace of Verizon’s video rollout, the company said today during an update presentation on its fiber-to-the-premises efforts.
“Franchising is not holding us back,” said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom."
Either she was lying or telling the truth in the "limited the pace of" comment. Which is it? This leads me back to my point...to investors they say one thing, to policy makers, it's something else entirely. | |
|
| | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Um... so what? That quote is 7 months old, but more importantly they deployed before agreements were in place; the agreements would be more a hinderance to offering service than deploying the technology.
Well, that and the obviousness of the notion that having to negotiate agreements with dozens of municipalities might just cause problems. | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Why? Because a for-profit company wants to go unchecked while using tax payer money to deploy a new service which will have no return to the people on it. It's pretty simple.
I understand that your position with your telecom will lead you to see it from your side, but why not take a step back and look at it from the consumer/tax payer point of view?
If it were up to me, I'd go back to municipal deployment. Unlike Qwest who isn't as financially strong as Verizon, Verizon has the money to deploy.. they are asking for the benefit from the tax payer in order to compete with another provider... to that, I say no. I'd agree with MA, and I'd agree with my side here in Minnesota, who thank god knows how to keep Qwest in check.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|
| dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Um... so what? said by fiberguy:Why? Because a for-profit company wants to go unchecked while using tax payer money to deploy a new service which will have no return to the people on it. It's pretty simple. Please refer me to the part of the article that suggested taxpayer money was being used to deploy the service- I must've missed it. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Um... so what? The article didn't have to. In MA, there's plenty of history behind the tax issue. | |
|
| dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by fiberguy:I understand that your position with your telecom will lead you to see it from your side, but why not take a step back and look at it from the consumer/tax payer point of view? 1. My position has absolutely nothing to do with my view.
2. Where in the hell do you think the taxes come from? Businesses- be it the corner hardware store or large corporation- don't pay taxes, they merely collect them from their customers. Being against higher prices and regulations that hinder new competition are looking at it from the consumer / taxpayer point of view. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Um... so what? 1) I have ties to an industry yet I'm never allowed to escape them, so going with the flow here, yes, yours do. And honestly, yes, your views are slanted towards the industry.
2) We don't agree. | |
|
|
|
