DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Sorry but not guilty I am not a Verizon sympathizer but I read Teletruth's report and I'm not convinced of their allegations. I don't see where Teletruth made a convincing case that Verizon promised something they didn't deliver. VZ didn't promise to provide 45Mbps service; they promised only that they could provide it in 5 days from a customer order. And why shouldn't they be able to? At the current rates for 45Mbps service, a customer is going to be payings tens of thousands of dollars a month!!!
Anyway, I didn't see anything in the report that addresses rates.
The bottom line is: I don't see that Teletruth's allegations will stand up in court. I wonder if the PA official who signed off on VZ's deal understood it the way Teletruth does. If so, it's the PA officials who are negligent for signing something that had huge gaping loopholes in it. Either that or Teletruth is simply way off base. |
|
| Yeah, I'm not sure yet either....that's a lot of information contained in the report to really digest with a quick glance...
But the PUC seems to acknowledge that Verizon promised 45Mbps capabilities that have yet to show:
quote:
It is apparent that DSL, as it currently exists today, (March 2002), is unable to provide the broadband availability of 45 Mbps both upstream and downstream that the Company voluntarily committed to and the Commission approved in 1995."
So it is quite frankly more than just promising a 5 day window....
Whether it was an intentional lawyer-screw on the part of BA attorneys, or is simply the case of some vague word related loopholes is the question..... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·World Lynx
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:
I am not a Verizon sympathizer but I read Teletruth's report and I'm not convinced of their allegations. I don't see where Teletruth made a convincing case that Verizon promised something they didn't deliver. VZ didn't promise to provide 45Mbps service; they promised only that they could provide it in 5 days from a customer order. And why shouldn't they be able to? At the current rates for 45Mbps service, a customer is going to be payings tens of thousands of dollars a month!!!
Anyway, I didn't see anything in the report that addresses rates.
The bottom line is: I don't see that Teletruth's allegations will stand up in court. I wonder if the PA official who signed off on VZ's deal understood it the way Teletruth does. If so, it's the PA officials who are negligent for signing something that had huge gaping loopholes in it. Either that or Teletruth is simply way off base.
Hmmmm..... I'm sure Verizon can set up broadband to anyone right now, but not via a DSL variant. T1 or T3, no problem, but will pay rates ($$$$!) for that service.... that is probably what they will claim...
See also another section I pasted from article...
'Speaking to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ronald F. Weigel, director of government relations for Verizon's Pennsylvania division, says the company could provide any school, business, or residence within Verizon's service area with a 45 Mbps connection, provided they COULD PAY (caps mine) for it.'
Yea, anybody can get T1 or T3 service to your door, BUT YOU WILL PAY FOR IT at the standard business rate....sneaky wording.. 
[text was edited by author 2003-02-19 17:02:25] |
|
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:
I am not a Verizon sympathizer but I read Teletruth's report and I'm not convinced of their allegations. I don't see where Teletruth made a convincing case that Verizon promised something they didn't deliver. VZ didn't promise to provide 45Mbps service; they promised only that they could provide it in 5 days from a customer order. And why shouldn't they be able to? At the current rates for 45Mbps service, a customer is going to be payings tens of thousands of dollars a month!!!
Anyway, I didn't see anything in the report that addresses rates.
The bottom line is: I don't see that Teletruth's allegations will stand up in court. I wonder if the PA official who signed off on VZ's deal understood it the way Teletruth does. If so, it's the PA officials who are negligent for signing something that had huge gaping loopholes in it. Either that or Teletruth is simply way off base.
Agreed. The interesting quote in this claim is that the 45Mbps is for the purpose of providing high speed/quality video conferencing.
Verizon didn't promise every home would have a fiber to the curb- nor did they promise residential SDSL at 45Mbps/45Mbps for $50 per month.
Verizon CAN provide a fiber to the home and CAN provide 45 Mbps/45Mbps broadband capability. Does this mean that it's for the purpose of replacing 768/128 ADSL?? No. Does it mean that it's available for high speed video conferencing? Yes.
Boogie |
|
|
|
approval from:
ross 
KrK
furlonium
| reply to DonLibes
Depends on what your definition of IS is. This is exactly why you can deal with weasels and liars. Lawyers can always twist words, this is why people consider lawyers a step above child molesters on the human totem pole.
"On March 28, 2002, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission rejected Verizon Pennsylvania's compliance with the state Alternate Regulation plan, stating that the Bell company had not satisfied its legal obligations to supply broadband services at 45mbs.
"…this Commission has a legal obligation to reject Verizon PA’s 2000 Update and require it to submit a new update specifying its plans to satisfy its legal obligation to provide a modernized network with broadband capability of at least 45 Mbps upstream and downstream, to be available within five days from the customer request date."
"
It seems pretty clear that the PUC was not satisfied that commitments were met. Apparently their "interpretation" was not satisfied.
The rhetoric surrounding the regulatory pushes in the middle of the decade swirled with talk of video services and fiber optic lines into the home. We aren't talking about a 10,000$ a month line or a "you can get anything if you are willing to pay for it" type of line.
For example(bell atlantic at the time)
""We expect Bell Atlantic's enhanced network will be ready to serve 8.75 million homes by the end of the year 2000. By the end of 1998, we plan to wire the top 20 markets"
Notice the term enhanced network, which doesn't mean dsl. Also notice the term homes(i.e. we aren't talking T3 service or "bazillion dollar a month you can get anything with enough money whatever yada yada belch")
We all know what was meant. The fact that verizon comes back later and claims that the words don't say that is only further proof that you can't deal with these people. These people will hand you cow dung and claim it's filet mignon and they'll have a lot of overpaid sacks to deny the validity of objective reality, discuss the complexities of human perception, yada yada belch, until any sane normal human being would rather stick a spike through their own skull than play any more bullshit games. You can condemn the government for not nailing them down explicitly enough but in the final analysis you can't make deals of any kind with sleazy liars who will twist everything in any way they can. Ultimately business can only function if there is some integrity behind the deals and negotiations made. |
|
| First line should read
"This is exactly why you can't deal" |
|
| reply to DonLibes
Re: Sorry but not guilty Aw, come on now! An allegation of wrong doing by an RBOC is all that is necessary to justify making the RBOC pay through the nose!! Please don't muddle up the works by using common sense and objective thinking! |
|
| reply to asdfdfdf
Re: Depends on what your definition of IS is. One must also take into account a number of factors- one of them being that this agreement was in 1995- BEFORE the Telecom Act of 1996 was passed.
It is entirely possible that a requirement to offer unbundled access to such new facilities as a result of TA1996 (which happened to "strike down" past requirements and/or agreements that went against the new legislation) was deemed non-plausible, hence this agreement was put aside as a necessity to comply with TA1996.
I'm not claiming this to be the exact situation, however it is completely possible. I would likewise find it possible to find a Missouri resident that would like to sue the state of Kansas for not complying with the US Supreme Court Dred vs Scott decision allowing previous Missouri residents to move to Kansas while "keeping their slaves."
Just because an agreement, decision or law is passed requiring a company or person to do ANYTHING, that does not mean that there was nothing that could occur afterward to cause such a law, agreement or decision to be be modified or even nullified based on the new circumstances.
I wouldn't call it "legal squirming" and "intentional misinterpretation" for one to attempt to interpret something to be more favorable to themselves. This is why there are judges- to interpret our laws and pass judgement on the interpretations of them. It isn't "conveniently" looked at incorrectly. For example, the author of this complaint "conveniently" interpreted the agreement to deploy the ability to transmit video at 45Mbps to mean that Verizon was now required to put mandatory fiber to the curb. This wasn't the agreement- but if you leave out the bit about video conferencing, it LOOKS like Verizon agreed to offer standard fiber to the curb and 45Mbps data. They DIDN'T, but this author would like for the PA PUC to think they did...
Boogie |
|
| If, for some reason, circumstances change and the terms of a deal can not be met then new terms are negotiated or the deal is recognized as nullified by both parties. In such circumstances, if the benefits to one party can not be met then the benefits to the other should be rescinded.
It is not acceptable for one party to unilaterally decide they aren't going to follow through, not give notice to the other party that they can't follow through, and continue to reap benefits from the deal while knowing full well that the other party believes the deal is still in force and will be respected. |
|
| said by asdfdfdf:
If, for some reason, circumstances change and the terms of a deal can not be met then new terms are negotiated or the deal is recognized as nullified by both parties. In such circumstances, if the benefits to one party can not be met then the benefits to the other should be rescinded.
It is not acceptable for one party to unilaterally decide they aren't going to follow through, not give notice to the other party that they can't follow through, and continue to reap benefits from the deal while knowing full well that the other party believes the deal is still in force and will be respected.
Well, it isn't really stated WHAT the real case is- it is only assumed that Verizon "backed out" of their end of the deal- and that is to assume that there was a valid deal to begin with.
We have only this authors word of the terms and interpretations (as well as both company and state intents and expectations) of this agreement.
There is no other offered evidence other than the word of the complaintant.
Boogie |
|
 alex4lifeAlex4lifePremium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC | reply to DonLibes
Re: Sorry but not guilty said by DonLibes:
VZ didn't promise to provide 45Mbps service; they promised only that they could provide it in 5 days from a customer order.
I'm guessing the "within 5 days" clause was put into place so as to force Verizon to build out all the infrastructure so that it would be available if and when someone wanted it. I sincerely doubt that Verizon could run fiber to any house in Pennsylvania in 5 days. |
|
| reply to boogie74
Re: Depends on what your definition of IS is. Such is law....loopholes and counter-loopholes matched with opinion....
Though your hint that you don't think there was a "valid deal" to begin with makes no sense. Clearly there was an initial deal, clearly the Penn PUC in March of 2002 stated that the state doesn't believe Verizon held up it's side of the bargain.
That much is clear.
The language indicates Verizon would have 45Mbps symmetrical bandwidth available to X amount of state areas by X date. Whether it was by Fiber or pine cone.
That much is clear.
Like it or not, Teletruth has a point.... |
|
| quote:
Like it or not, Teletruth has a point....
Yes, Teletruth has a point IF Verizon hasn't come through on the deal (and we haven't seen what the ACTUAL deal was- only what Teletruth interprets it to mean- much less proof that Verizon hasn't come through on it; nor have we seen the consequences of non-compliance- which most often fines- not a complete repeal of the original agreement) AND if the deal is still valid.
It was not my intention to deny that the agreement existed (despite my words seeming to hint so).
Boogie |
|
| reply to N10Cities
Re: Sorry but not guilty Hmmmm. Once the infrastructure has been paid for (2.1 Billion should cover it right?) The cost does not need to be so high for monthly service. No need for QoS with 45M at a residence, so why would a high cost be necessary (other then gouging of course). I believe the tax breaks should cover future infrastructure costs. |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to alex4life
said by alex4life:
said by DonLibes:
VZ didn't promise to provide 45Mbps service; they promised only that they could provide it in 5 days from a customer order.
I'm guessing the "within 5 days" clause was put into place so as to force Verizon to build out all the infrastructure so that it would be available if and when someone wanted it. I sincerely doubt that Verizon could run fiber to any house in Pennsylvania in 5 days.
Your sincere doubts aren't going to win a lawsuit. Anyone who has contracted with Verizon for a 45Mbps fiber run and didn't get it within 5 days, please step forward. |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
| reply to Does it Matter
said by Does it Matter:
Hmmmm. Once the infrastructure has been paid for (2.1 Billion should cover it right?) The cost does not need to be so high for monthly service. No need for QoS with 45M at a residence, so why would a high cost be necessary (other then gouging of course). I believe the tax breaks should cover future infrastructure costs.
I agree......most of the time, the high cost is associated with QoS (monitoring, etc.), but if that is not used, the hardware shouldn't be that high. They still use the same pairs (someone correct me if I am wrong) or at least similar hardware as a voice line. My company is currently rolling out frame relay to over 300 facilities and a lot of them are out in the sticks, so it can be done. But if you don't require QoS, they should give a price break or something. |
|
