openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to cableties
Re: Vermont should go after Verizon and contact the IRS
So VZ's liability is what? morbo  insinuated that VZ is liable/guilty of something. My response was that VZ did nothing wrong and that there are others to clearly lay the responsibility/blame on to include Fairpoint's CEO and BOD as well as state/federal regulators. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| VZ should be investigated along with Fairpoint. The regulators that approved this deal should be fired. Vermont should contact the IRS to see what, if anything, can be done about this shady deal. If for nothing else, to prevent loopholes like this from being exploited at the expense of customers and investors. Maybe Vermont's AG can explore options for going after Verizon.
The problem I have is that although the deal was technically legal, (almost) everyone knew that it was in actuality a horrible deal that primarily benefited Verizon. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by morbo :VZ should be investigated along with Fairpoint. What do you propose be investigated? That's the part of your assertion that I'm not grasping.said by morbo :(almost) everyone knew that it was in actuality a horrible deal that primarily benefited Verizon. Except apparently for the organization(s) responsible for approving the deal. And yes, those entities should be strung up and made an example of. |
|
Noreaster
@myfairpoint.net
| Verizon and Fairpoint sold the idea to the states that a small company with limited assets could "take over" its landlines, even though there was much dissension in the ranks and elsewhere about Fairpoint being able to pull it off. There was initially resistance to this on the boards and the consumer advocates in all three states. The question is, how was this resistance overcome. Investigating this turn-around of the public service board may reveal some interesting results, who knows. At least it would help to prove or disprove any hanky-panky that may have gone on. |
|
cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Pensacola, FL
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :So VZ's liability is what? morbo insinuated that VZ is liable/guilty of something. My response was that VZ did nothing wrong and that there are others to clearly lay the responsibility/blame on to include Fairpoint's CEO and BOD as well as state/federal regulators. Deal's done. VZ has NO liability. Period. It was approved. Period. Done. Over. Fairpoint stands on its own. Period.
----
Not a lawyer but play one on TV....and Oprah. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Noreaster
Agreed. This investigation should be of the entities that had a hand in the approval of the business transaction, not the selling participant which did everything legal. Now if evidence arises that VZ greased a few palms in the process, then unleash the investigative hounds. There's no reason to investigate VZ at this time, which is what morbo suggests should be done. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to cameronsfx
No it's not "done". "Legality" is a term corporations put out to shield themselves from the common man's wrath. However in the telecom industry "legal" is meaningless when the FCC spends a decade gutting the most important Act regarding national communication services ever passed.
Verizon had a responsibility to the consumers it had been serving for years, and who had been loyally subscribing to their services for years. They were as aware as anyone that their customers would be entering a minefield with Fairpoint. They need to be held accountable for their anti-societal business decisions. |
|
