Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to danclan
Re: Kudos verzion
said by danclan  :I get it!! They are supposed to start where they might lose money first THEN go for the cash rich areas...yeah...that makes sense.... So I guess all of that money they begged for and we we paid them over the years to build out a fiber network is for nothing eh? |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Begged for? I've never had a carrier "beg" me for anything.
And the money you paid them? You got internet and TV service for it. That's not "nothing".  |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | They begged the Government, not us.
www.teletruth.org is your friend. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| said by Eat Me :They begged the Government, not us. www.teletruth.org is your friend. LOL, sure they are. |
|
A Beautiful Day
@ameritech.net
| reply to Eat Me
teletruth.org is a joke. Their very existence depends on stirring shit and those at the top make quite a good buck doing it so everything they do is suspect. They're as bad as the corporate think tanks. I consider them two steps below the Enquirer. |
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by A Beautiful Day :
teletruth.org is a joke. Their very existence depends on stirring shit and those at the top make quite a good buck doing it so everything they do is suspect. They're as bad as the corporate think tanks. I consider them two steps below the Enquirer.
Appears that way to me too. I went to their site just to check them out. They claim to be a consumer advocacy group... that's for-profit. Not that for-profits CAN'T be advocacy groups, but their reasoning behind NOT being a not-for-profit is... curious. They claim that being not-for-profit no longer ensures that an organization really is operating in the interest of the groups they advocate for. Ok... well how does becoming a for-profit group ensure that they get that credibility? They don't explain that.
Reading some of what they had out there, I saw alot of alarmism, but very little by way of anything backing up their claims. They make claims that sound alarming and then use tautology to prove their claims... while never actually demonstrating anything. Anyone can make any claims that they want - and tautology is NOT a valid argument.
The thing is, Verizon and AT&T have been very careful NOT to take federal money for the roll outs of FiOS and U-Verse. Why? Largely because federal money comes with federal strings (just ask those banks that got bailout money from the government). The fact that tax dollars went to laying out copper networks was used as a major justification for the 1996 telecommunications act, which forced these providers to open up their lines to competition. Not wanting a repeat of that, both companies stayed away from any federal money when rolling out these systems.
BTW, one thing this group seems to claim (again, without anything by way of actual proof) is that Verizon got special tax breaks from NJ, which is proof that they got tax-payer money to lay out FiOS. Really? You mean they're the ONLY company that EVER got special tax consideration as an incentive to keep the business where they are? Hmmm... I wonder why Delaware has so many banks - can't POSSIBLY be because the tax liability for those banks is really low in Delaware, could it? Nah, I'm sure that's not it - so by their logic, those banks built their businesses at tax-payer expense too! Even those that accepted no bailout money. Hell, by their definition ALL companies have grown thanks to tax-payer dollars.
One final point - if they can make this claim about telecom companies, what about cable? Cable services were given legalize monopoly status for years. They got protection from the governments that they served. That lack of competition came at the expense of tax payers (and even non-tax-payers) in the form of additional cost. What's missing in all this 'telco's get to cherry pick, but cable didn't' mess is the fact that cable was granted a monopoly status in many areas while they were rolling out! They were considered a utility, and as such were protected from competition. That's why they had the requirements for not cherry-picking areas. Besides, if you look at what Verizon is doing - they're required to get franchise agreements just like cable - which include provisions for coverage, just like cable - and if you believe that cable doesn't get to pick and choose where they provide service, you're nuts. I know areas around here where Comcast refuses to run cable because it's too expensive. |
|
