elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| So? What's the problem? Why should Verizon be "bothered" with rural customers if they aren't willing to pay the freight for their service? Why should rural customers complain if the "big bad phone company" sells their accounts who someone who actually wants the business?
Why should urban and suburban customers be forced to subsidize their rural counterparts? Our phone bills already reflect more taxes and fees than basic service charges. Now we're supposed to pay so the farm can get better broadband?
I don't think so. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | have you not been following the disaster that has unfolded since the first time Verizon used this tax scheme? seriously? |
|
| reply to elray
Uh, you're in one of the 'rural' areas that Vz is attempting to offload. That's the funny things. Vz is offloading Metro Los Angeles because it's too rural and unprofitable... |
|
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to morbo
said by morbo:have you not been following the disaster that has unfolded since the first time Verizon used this tax scheme? seriously? The "disaster" you refer to is not the result of the tax code.
It stems from the inept MBA's at Frontier and the poor revenue picture they chose to acquire - perhaps underestimating the fact that rural America is unwilling to buck up and pay their own way.
It is not Verizon's responsibility to vet the balance sheet of an industry suitor unless they retain a stake in the enterprise. Rather, their job is to enhance shareholder value.
I don't like Verizon, AT&T, or Cableco. Never have, never will. But they are for-profit entities, and "greed" is what motivates them to invest and compete.
For the last couple years, I've read here about how the rural customer is left to rot by Verizon, and how Telco (rightfully) actively sues to prevent rural muni overbuilders. If this is the case, why would rural customers want to stay on with the big bad telco?
Frontier goes bankrupt, and the rural assets are on the table:
Form your own telco coop, buy the lines and CO for pennies on the dollar, sticking the loss to Frontier shareholders, refurbish the copper, and offer DSL via AdrenaLines or IDSL, and enjoy local employment and ownership, operate more efficiently, at a lower cost, with dividends to members. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:Uh, you're in one of the 'rural' areas that Vz is attempting to offload. Cite?
I wouldn't mind, but LA is not part of the deal.
The exchanges referenced in SoCal are those bordering Arizona and Nevada. |
|
| reply to elray
if this kind of thinking held the day, the 1939 telecomunications act would never have been put in place, and people outside the big cities still wouldn't even have telephones!! |
|
| reply to elray
Ah, see I just assumed that Vz was trying to get rid of the whole state. I must be mistaken then. Thanks for the clarification. Cite? |
|
| reply to Buscorrupt
Well is telephone service a natural monopoly or not?
Because the 1939 Act assumed it was but everything for the past 25 years assumed it wasn't. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to elray
That's what I'm saying. Though I'd deploy bonded ADSL2+ rather than IDSL. ADSL2+ bonded can push decent speeds out to 23,000 feet, longer on heavier-gauge wire... |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to bogey780
The last-mile infrastructure is a natural monopoly, or close to it. Beyond that, it isn't. |
|
| reply to elray
said by elray:Why should urban and suburban customers be forced to subsidize their rural counterparts? Because in many ways, rural citizens make your urban and suburban life possible. For example, in this state, we have Abbott school districts which are basically the inner cities. Money is taken away from rural and suburban areas to fund them. Rural and suburban areas still have to fund their schools. The results are either making do with less or higher taxes. Usually it's higher taxes because the NJEA has a lot of influence.
This is in addition to rural areas supplying food, fresh water (watersheds) as well as recreational opportunities for those in urban and suburban areas. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to elray
said by elray:The "disaster" you refer to is not the result of the tax code. actually, it is. because without RMT tax "scheme", a company interested in buying the rural areas would have to buy them from Verizon with cash money. as it is now, they essentially put a few billion on the credit card with zero ability to pay it back (bankruptcy is a certainty following these deals) and Verizon gets a nice tax writeoff. there's plenty of blame to go around on why the deals are approved BUT the only reason any of this happens is due to the RMT.
the "form your own telco" line. it's tired and isn't an actual argument for the obvious reasons. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:in many ways, rural citizens make your urban and suburban life possible. For example, in this state, we have Abbott school districts which are basically the inner cities. Money is taken away from rural and suburban areas to fund them. Rural and suburban areas still have to fund their schools. The results are either making do with less or higher taxes. Usually it's higher taxes because the NJEA has a lot of influence. This is in addition to rural areas supplying food, fresh water (watersheds) as well as recreational opportunities for those in urban and suburban areas. I'll concede that in some states, school funding follows your stated model - not the case in California. So I suppose if you want to propose urban subsidy of rural broadband in your state, I would have no objection. Just don't make it national policy and expect federal money.
As for the rural "contribution", that's great, but it isn't something you either measure in hard dollar terms, nor use to justify taxing your inner-city neighbors. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to elray
said by elray:Why should Verizon be "bothered" with rural customers if they aren't willing to pay the freight for their service? Who says they're not? VZ won't even give us the option.
Note also that: 1.) VZ uses rights of way and other public resources, and thus has an obligation to serve the public; 2.) It's U.S. national policy (1996 Telecomm Act), that affordable broadband must be made available to all U.S. citizens. "I'm alright Jack" digital redlining violates that policy. |
|
