 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | They promised PA stuff too and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't.
Verizon promises don't mean sh!t. |
|
| said by Dogfather:and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't. Verizon promises don't mean sh!t. And the telelie from Teletruth lives on.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| What in PA isn't covered by DSL now? I think 95% of the state was now with a minimum of 1.5Mbit in the way out there areas... and 3.0Mbit in the average towns and now 7.1Mbit in areas that have 30k+ people and FIOS in the largest areas... |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I know that truth is Kryptonite to industry shills but ignoring reality just serves to embarrass yourself. Of course you never substantiate your claims that Teletruth is lying, meanwhile Teletruth substantiates all of the claims they make.
»Picture Perfect Deal
The telco promised 45Mb service by specific deadlines and in exchange got deregulation worth hundreds of millions.
Teletruth just consolodates Pennsylvania PUC documents and State Senate testimony of well known industry experts.
Unless you want to refute the claims of the Pennsylvania PUC and Teletruth consolidation of facts into a simple summary, you can knock off the endless diversions and conjecture.
In the meantime I'll take the word of industry expert Dr. Lee Selywn »www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf over a telco shill.
If you care to substantiate your claims against teletruth, I've posted a link to Dr. Selywn's testimony. Feel free to tell us your credentials and what about Selywns testimony is factually incorrect. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:and got over a billion in tax breaks and other goodies (other industries didn't get) to do it...and of course didn't. Actually, specialized tax breaks for specific businesses are SOP for Pennsylvania, at least when we lived there a couple of years ago. Major businesses were routinely granted breaks from paying corporate income and/or local property tax (this was directed primarily at retailers).
Verizon wasn't getting anything that any other business, if it lobbied the state hard enough, wouldn't otherwise get.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
|
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Uh, no. Chapter 30 was specific to BA and laid down in no uncertain terms what BA was supposed to do in exchange for the goodies they were to get (and no one else gets). It was specifically deregulation of BA's business that netted them hundreds of millions and Dr. Lee Selywn went into detail during his testimony exactly what happened, and how BA benefitted from Chapter 30 and how BA failed to deliver on any of the promises they made.
Registration may be required (but I just hit submit without entering any info).
»www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf |
|
| Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Again, just because the gov't is bought and paid for by big business doesn't mean anything. Telcos got immunity for wiretapping too, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'll ask you again, what in industry expert Dr. Selywn's testimony is factually incorrect. It's Dr. Selywn's testimony along with other PUC hearing docs, and BA's own annual reports and press releases that Teletruth is relying on in their claims against the thieves at Verizon.
»www.econtech.com/library/LLS%20P···2002.pdf
So far you have yet to support your claims. Teletruth supported theirs. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Dogfather
I'm not arguing that Bell Atlantic received tax breaks or not.
My comment was directed at your claim that other industries do not receive such breaks. I am simply stating that vendor-directed tax breaks are standard operating policy for Pennsylvania, and it is routine for businesses other than Verizon to get such breaks.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I never claimed that businesses don't get tax breaks. I claimed that BA got breaks that no one else got and there is no disputing that. That was what the Chap 30 agreement was all about.
What other industries saw deregulation under Chap 30? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Dogfather:What other industries saw deregulation under Chap 30? Well that was one particular law that applied to Verizon. I am saying there are other laws that grant other businesses tax breaks.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | No one is disputing that. What some telco shills continue to claim is that Teletruth is lying about the billions in benefits that BA (now Verizon) got for high speed video and data services the telco never deployed.
They just continue to spout bull like "telelie" instead of actually supporting their claims or actually refuting the testimony of industry experts that Teletruth quotes in their Verizon PA report. Of course they'll completely ignore BA's own press releases and reports touting their Chapter 30 plans.
It's like they have never read the testimony, read the Chapter 30 agreement, or even Bell Atlantic's press releases and annual reports of the period.
The facts are indisputable. BA got billions in benefits from deregulation, all of which Dr. Lee Selwyn details in his testamony, and Chapter 30 spells out EXACTLY what speeds and services were required to be deployed and by when. And there is certainly no disputing that BA (now Verizon) didn't live up to their promises in Chapter 30, meanwhile kept the estimated 4 billion dollars in goodies they received. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:And the telelie from Teletruth lives on. It is a shame that the only way you can counter his arguments and the evidence he presented is by calling it a lie without even making an attempt to back that assertion up with your own evidence. Just goes to show how much water your argument hold. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. Actually, that proves nothing. Filing a complaint with those agencies and having something done is almost never based on merit, but usually based on the number of complaints or the amount of money the get from you (ie - license holding broadcasters who pay small fortunes for spectrum).
For example, the "wardrobe malfunction" incident at the Superbowl only received the massive amount of attention it did from the government because of the flood of complains that it received. I've seen things that would offend the people who reported that incident even more on late night TV, but nothing is ever done because the complaint volume is so low. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Kushnick filed complaints with the SEC, FTC, FCC, IRS, etc., etc. over this. He did not prevail on any of them. Maybe that gives you some idea of the merits of his complaints. hahahahahahahaha!
you funny TK!
his complaints, if acted upon, would have benefited consumers. Everyone knows the current govt doesn't give a sh1t about the public. They're not going to do anything to stop the telco campaign contribution gravy train. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
...
For example, the "wardrobe malfunction" incident at the Superbowl only received the massive amount of attention it did from the government because of the flood of complains that it received....
just a quick correction: the FCC acted in this case because
1) Martin (or was it Powell? no matter same difference) saw the opportunity to push his indecency agenda
2) most of the complaints were form letters generated by some religious right organization, so there were actually not that many unique complaints, but this gave Martin the backing to pursue 1) |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to Dogfather
Re: They promised PA stuff too No kidding. When I see Verizon promising to roll out DSL to rural small towns, I get the uncontrollable urge to laugh. It's just not something they ever do.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:It's like they have never read the testimony, read the Chapter 30 agreement, or even Bell Atlantic's press releases and annual reports of the period. The facts are indisputable. BA got billions in benefits from deregulation, all of which Dr. Lee Selwyn details in his testamony, and Chapter 30 spells out EXACTLY what speeds and services were required to be deployed and by when. And there is certainly no disputing that BA (now Verizon) didn't live up to their promises in Chapter 30, meanwhile kept the estimated 4 billion dollars in goodies they received. Chapter 30 was neither an "agreement" nor a "promise". Would you mind posting the rest of the testimony? The PA PUC, who received all of the testimony, decided to rescind Chapter 30. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | The Chapter 30 law was both. It spelled out what BA was to do and what they were to receive.
I posted Dr. Selwyn's testimony in its entirety. If you want to find other testimony you can do so yourself. Teletruth has additional excerpts from testimony given as well as excerpts from BA's own annual reports and press releases. Even now, Verizon claims that DSL satisfies the original Chapter 30 agreement when it obviously doesn't.
Meanwhile, when did they rescind it, before or after BA's original commitment dates were to be met? They weakened the deal (letting Verizon off the hook completely) only AFTER BA/VZ failed miserably and didn't deploy sh!t.
I'm just waiting to see what facts there are to support TK's claim that BA didn't get billions in deregulation benefits in exchange for the 45Mb deployment that never happened and that teletruth is lying. I've posted the testimony of a well known industry expert who clearly states how they did along with actual number data.
The facts are few and simple.
In exchange for deregulation and other goodies the telco was supposed to deploy 45Mb service for data and video. They got the deregulation, talked about their big plans in their press releases and annual reports, but in actuality didn't deploy anything.
As a direct result of the deregulation they made billions and billions more in profits, company specific tax breaks and other goodies which is what Dr. Selwyn's testimony describes and PA telco subs got nothing. In fact when it was finally time for Verizon to roll out fiber, they started in Texas instead of PA.
That's it...not exactly rocket science. |
|
