1 edit |
MotivationThis should give Verizon the proper incentive to build out FiOS to towns that are supposedly less profitable. For people that live in these areas, most are being gouged by the cable company, enabling them undercut pricing where FIOS IS actually deployed. Hopefully it will also entice other ILECs like Frontier, to advance their last mile as well. |
|
 tito79
join:2010-03-14
Port Saint Lucie, FL |
tito79
Member
2015-Jan-20 8:20 am
There really looking for profit not loans. |
|
1 recommendation |
to ITALIAN926
If all it cost was $1 Billion to see that almost every address in NY State had 100Mb it would have been done years ago. By comparison Chattanooga's EPB has spent over 3/4 of a Billion Dollars to get service under 100,000 homes. |
|
3 recommendations |
to ITALIAN926
I am sure they will promise 10G to every house, tent and camper in the state by summer 2015, take the 500M, report record profits for a quarter then tell the state 'sorry wasnt feasible, just impossible, we need 2 billion more to bring 100 Mbps to... '1%'. You know, just like all the other billions they have taken just to still not offer service to my address, but at least all of those summer homes on the various lakes will be taken care of. |
|
| |
By all means, please give a citation that Verizon has proclaimed "record profits" in regards to their wireline division, at any point, in like the last ten years, while FIOS has existed. |
|
| |
JasonOD
Anon
2015-Jan-20 12:11 pm
It's still profitable, but VZ realizes the cost to maintain/deferred maintenance costs is really an anchor on profits. And the reality is wireless has the highest profit margins and has become THE answer in most cases- witness cable/independent voip losses to wireless. |
|
 Noah VailOh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica
2 edits |
to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:By all means, please give a citation that Verizon has proclaimed "record profits" in regards to their wireline division, at any point, in like the last ten years, while FIOS has existed. Verizon's profit taking via Gov Subsidies began long before the FiOS rollout so only some of it aligns with the FiOS timeline. Also, Vz's wireline revenues over the last 10 years have lots of complicating factors. 
In the last 10 years, Vz has re-channeled employee benefit and POTS resources into FiOS builds, sold off their copper networks and stopped new FiOS buildouts. What is straightforward is that after years of taxpayers funding Verizon's trade-of-aging-copper-for-new-Fiber, Vz wireline revenues have started their long climb. 
so that for Verizon,
any new taxpayer-funded government subsidies
are much more likely to result in record profits,
than at any time in the previous 10 years.
|
|
|
 Xioden
Premium Member
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
1 recommendation |
to ITALIAN926
|
|
 fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to Noah Vail
Whether or not taking a legal tax deduction amounts to a government subsidy is a matter for debate, but setting that aside, can you show that VZ took a greater deduction than they were legally allowed under the tax code as written? If not, what exactly is your point with all these references? VZ did nothing wrong, either legally or ethically, by availing itself of every tax deduction it was allowed. To do otherwise would not meet their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Do you (or your employer)take every tax deduction you are legally allowed to take? Assuming so, why make an issue of VZ doing the same? |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY |
to ITALIAN926
How about first offering it to residents on blocks listed ar wired when only 1 building is wired? |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Noah Vail
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kushnick's numbers don't make sense. I posted these charts the other day, but here they are for reference again. As a percentage of revenue, wireline actually demands more CAPEX than wireless. Wireline annual CAPEX also increased by a few billion dollars from pre FiOS deployments through the peak in 2007 to back to pre-2004 levels last year, clearly demonstrating a focus on wireline infrastructure. |
|
| |
to Noah Vail
Just my guess this is being done to give some job security and growth to Verizon and Frontier union workers.
Since the unions stand to benefit there will be more eyes on how the funds end up being used. |
|
| |
to openbox9
Uh... It demonstrates Seidenberg supported FIOS and his successor didn't. It means Verizon has become increasingly infatuated with the high margin wireless business. The ability to spend a lower % of revenue on CAPEX enables those margins and is precisely why wireless is so popular with shareholders. |
|
| sonicmerlin |
to fg8578
Are you kidding? You don't think Verizon's lobbying had nothing to do with those tax breaks? What about the promises made during the writing of the '96 Telecom Act, and the way they've scammed clueless taxpayers in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey by cozying up with corrupt regulators? Or the disgusting corruption of the Frontier deal? You don't think any of that is unethical? |
|
1 recommendation |
to fg8578
"To do otherwise would not meet their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders."
Perhaps it's time to revisit how business works so that businesses can more freely reinvest in themselves instead of having to give more and more profits to shareholders. Seriously, the whole idea of 'the corporation's job is to make the most profit possible *for the shareholders* comes from 1908, when Henry Ford wanted to stop paying massive special dividends and wanted instead to reinvest that money into the company and its employees (as well as the public, via decreased cost for his cars), but was roadblocked by greedy investors (John Francis and Horace Elgin Dodge) who were more interested in their own personal fortunes than that of the public or employees. What's hilarious is that *this isn't even necessarily reflected by state law anymore,* but it is so ingrained into the thinking of the 'free market' supporters that they always claim it to be true. |
|
| |
PatchTues to openbox9
Anon
2015-Jan-20 7:12 pm
to openbox9
said by openbox9: As a percentage of revenue, wireline actually demands more CAPEX than wireless. Wireline annual CAPEX also increased by a few billion dollars from pre FiOS deployments through the peak in 2007 to back to pre-2004 levels last year, clearly demonstrating a focus on wireline infrastructure. There is no incentive for Verizon to try and get some of the wireline subsidy from NY. The money avail is so little that Verizon's qtrly earnings dwarf any subsidy. Long term it would cost them to accept NY dollars. |
|
fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to TheRogueX
said by TheRogueX:What's hilarious is that *this isn't even necessarily reflected by state law anymore,* but it is so ingrained into the thinking of the 'free market' supporters that they always claim it to be true That's your opinion. I stated mine. If you don't like how corporations treat their income (i.e., dividends vs. reinvestment), perhaps you should buy some shares of stock and organize other shareholders to vote for a proposal to put their interests second to reinvesting in the company. You might be surprised at how many other shareholders agree with you. But of course you missed the point to harp on a side issue. EVEN IF the corporation opted to reinvest ahead of paying dividends, minimizing their taxable income would STILL be in the best interests of shareholders. Would you care to dispute that? |
|
| |
to TheRogueX
since 2003ish.. Parker Brothers had to rethink the board game "MONOPOLY" from owning the most PROPERTIES (and bankrupting competitors) to REAPING THE MOST PROFIT (and colluding/racketeering with competitors)... to big business.. its not about the CONTROL or POWER.. it's about the MONEY.. in the end is all PAPER/ELECTRONIC money.. terms like the "PUBLIC INTEREST" have been shown the exit door, then fired out of a canon through it.. |
|
fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Are you kidding? You don't think Verizon's lobbying had nothing to do with those tax breaks? What about the promises made during the writing of the '96 Telecom Act, and the way they've scammed clueless taxpayers in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey by cozying up with corrupt regulators? Or the disgusting corruption of the Frontier deal? You don't think any of that is unethical? No I'm not kidding. Tax breaks for accelerated depreciation are part of the tax code and are available to EVERY corporation that invests in long term capital assets. This isn't some kind of "sweet heart" deal written into the tax code just for Verizon. And it certainly is nothing nefarious as Noah Vail seems to imply. Can you quote one of the "promises made during the writing of the '96 Telecom Act"? It's hard to debate that point when you make a vague allegation with no support whatever. And what does the Frontier deal have to do with the "record profits" of VZ that this sub-thread is supposed to be about? |
|
Noah VailOh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kushnick's numbers don't make sense. I posted these charts the other day, Like I said, these graphs were evidence that puzzling out the last 10 years of Verizon's wireline revenues from it's earnings is complicated. |
|
| Noah Vail |
to fg8578
said by fg8578:Whether or not taking a legal tax deduction amounts to a government subsidy is a matter for debate, but setting that aside, can you show that VZ took a greater deduction than they were legally allowed under the tax code as written? I think posting the link to the Vz tax rant was a bad choice on my part. It wasn't really part of the point I was trying to make and it just muddied the waters. I appreciate your comments on it. I repent and vow to improve my posting skills. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to sonicmerlin
Wireline CAPEX had already flatlined at current levels before Seidenberg left in 2011. The revenue trends clearly shows why carriers are focusing on wireless. Look at the CAPEX vs revenue charts; Verizon spends more in wireline as a percentage than wireless. Verizon is investing $16B per year in CAPEX. |
|
| openbox9 |
to PatchTues
Agreed. You likely won't see major carriers at this trough. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Noah Vail
I don't view it as complicated at all. Total CAPEX rose through 2007, with a focus on wireline, then retraced to current levels with a shift toward wireless. It's not difficult to see the claimed $23B spent on FiOS. |
|
Noah VailOh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica |
said by openbox9:I don't view it as complicated at all. It's not difficult to see the claimed $23B spent on FiOS. I'm glad this is simple for someone. Fill in some of the numbers for me, please? How much of FiOS buildout costs were offset by the initial mass firing of middle management and subsequent "tweaking" of employee benefits? I'll root around for some other FiOS buildout simplicities that could benefit from your clarifications. |
|
2 edits |
Im not following the argument. Any reasons you inject into the argument is moot. Are you trying to say FiOS is a gold mine of sorts? There are no "record profits" being made. It is profitable, and its a long term investment into a network which is essentially future proof. Their wireline profits are dwarfed by their wireless, and this conflicting relationship is the ONLY reason they chose not to fully replace their copper network with FTTP. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:How much of FiOS buildout costs were offset by the initial mass firing of middle management and subsequent "tweaking" of employee benefits? ZERO! What kind of silly question is that. Ask that of any company that spends a dime. |
|
