AT&T Wants 100% Broadband Coverage By 2014 > This says it all

reply to NormanS

Re: This says it all

quote:

---

Customers paid for these networks through changes in State deregulation — massive financial incentives were given to the phone companies per State.

---

So if the Government said to you, Sir you are getting to keep all your income, not pay any taxes and get that deal for the next 20 Years because of your promise to "do a certain task" you would turn it down saying that it has no value?

Right.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

Value != $$$. No money was given to the telcos. Just that none was taken, either.

Tax is just money that we pay the government so the government can meet its operating expenses.

Getting to keep money, instead of paying taxes can't be considered "being paid" money. Nobody gave a dime to the telcos.

Now, if you want to complain that the telcos failed to keep a promise, and did not expend capital on their infrastructure, that is another matter, and much more accurately portrays what happened. The telcos promised to expend capital on infrastructure improvement in exchange for a tax break. They then did not follow through.

But no money changed hands, which is the implication behind the claims that the telcos were "paid" money to do something. They were not "given" one red cent.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

I can agree with most all of that. But, they should now have to pay the back all taxes, pay all the funds they were released from originally paying back to the government plus every concession they were allowed under law should be revoked immediately for failure to produce. The full restitution of all breaks and the revocation of all concessions is something they should be charged with returning by Congress.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

No, they would be paying back/giving back/losing continued access to what they were not entitled to in the first place since they didn't keep their end of the bargained agreement that allowed them to gain so many benefits and increased income/profits.

No, I don't equate a individuals right to bear arms given by the Constitution (you will easily notice that we as individuals did not give up or trade anything for that right nor did we make huge profits either) to any tax credit or concession given to a Corporation so they can get out of a bill that they would have had to pay or to get income/profits from selling features or services they were not entitled/not allowed to (like selling Long Distance when they were previously precluded from it) until they made that future promised in exchange concession as anywhere near the same level.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

That was supposed to be an example of retroactive legislation. I.e., making something (anything would have worked as an example) illegal at some date well before the law takes effect, then imposing penalties for violations which were not in violation at the time they were committed.

And the point is, the government did not demand a performance penalty before agreeing to giving breaks. Ex post facto penalties seem wrong on so many levels. If you make a deal, make a binding deal. That is why we have contract law in the first place.

Or just follow Obama's lead, and nationalize the telcos.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply to NormanS
Read our book, or read the various state filings we put up at our site.
* Free eBook Download: Renamed “$300 Billion Broadband Scandal”,
»www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

or Fiber optic States.
»www.teletruth.org/fiberopticstates.htm

What happened was --- state regulation was called "rate-of-return', which capped the profits the company could make, which was important as they were monopolies, The rate of return was about 10% of revenue miinus expenses

Under the new laws, known as Deregulation, alternative regulations, or price caps, the companies were allowed to keep all of the profits, not to mention take large tax-write-offs by changing 'depreciation' how fast you can write off the networks. -- which saves billions in taxes -- the change was based directly on the comittment that they would so that they would spend this new found money on network upgrades.

Their 'returns', on average, when to 30%, but instead of spending the money, pocketed it, used it for international purchases and increases to the Executive compensation.

And to customers -- it meant that the various services would have increases, even if there was no competition --- Or, the other way of looking at it -- prices would have decreased as their profits would have been managed before deregulation.

And it is billions per state collected --- And it's stil being collected as most mosts never went back and said -- hey, you didn't build out the networks, you in fact rolled out DSL instead of fiber-based broadband, ---

A few states, like PA or NJ made some noise, but nothing was every changed.

Thus, instead of spending the profits on upgrades, we sit here 15th in the world in broadband, watching other countries who actually made sure that the network construction was done ---

And also -- these networks were 'open to all competitors' -- I could choose my ISP or even different video programmer --- and was ubiquitous -- built throughout the entire state because as customers paid for it, all costs were averaged so rural areas were being subsidized by urban areas ---

Today, we have a system where AT&T, Verizon, etc can go to the Public Service Commissions and just increase the customers' rates --- Deregulation at it's finest -

In case you have not noticed, monopolies are dead. Cable sells voice and telcos sell video. Neither can raise prices on their products as theey now have to compete on price and service.

Things have changed.

reply to Kushnick
Which means exactly how much tax revenue was given to the telcos? The amount is $0, no matter how you try to spin it.

If you wish to talk about this, do not frame it as "The government gave $X bazillion to the telcos"; that is not what happened.

What the government did was to give the telcos a tax break, not tax revenue.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum