meb
join:2002-12-12
Potomac, MD | reply to PaulGo
Re: Verizon Goes to Court to bring FIOS TV to Mont County MD said by PaulGo:...Verizon only wants to install it in profitable areas excluding many county residences that are either in areas which less than x number of houses per square mile or that they deem not profitable. To me this is not a level playing field since Comcast has under a county agreement wired these areas. Where has Verizon stated or implied it wants to install FiOS selectively except for density? Comcast has similar density requirements.
What about Comcast being able to offer phone service without the same fees or regulation as Verizon? I agree with the theory, but there is no such thing as a level playing field at this time. I think it better to allow technology to progress as regulation struggles to keep up. It sure helps consumers. |
|
 PaulGo
join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD
1 edit | From the response to the Verizon lawsuit by Montgomery County:
Indeed, under the Verizon proposal, the County may not even be able to satisfy interests it is obligated to satisfy under federal law, much less ensure that needs and interests of the community are adequately protected as provided by the Cable Act. For example, the County has an affirmative obligation under federal law to “assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.” 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3). The County also has the right to establish build-out requirements. 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). Verizon acknowledges that it has not completed construction of the FTTP network in the County – it currently only passes 40% of homes in the County, and the company has stated that it plans to pass no more than 52% of homes by the end of 2006.16 Verizon has said little or nothing about its plans beyond that time frame. It is also not clear that Verizon has developed an effective technical solution for serving apartment buildings. Lawton Decl. at 23. Verizon has sought an exception for such buildings, even though that could bear on the issue of compliance with the federal law. October Draft, §3.1.1. The County will be harmed if Verizon begins to offer cable service without respecting the County’s statutory rights, or if the County is left open to a claim under the Cable Act that it has failed to ensure access to residents of the unserved areas on the basis of their income. The County has the right and duty to address these issues under federal law and it is simply wrong to claim that the County’s authority will not be affected if Verizon is given the right to provide service, or permitted to avoid a franchise process that would allow the County to address these issues. |
|
| said by PaulGo:From the response to the Verizon lawsuit by Montgomery County: Indeed, under the Verizon proposal, the County may not even be able to satisfy interests it is obligated to satisfy under federal law, much less ensure that needs and interests of the community are adequately protected as provided by the Cable Act. For example, the County has an affirmative obligation under federal law to “assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.” 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3). You have repeatedly failed to show that VZ is determining where to offer service based on income. When called on it last time you switched from income to unit density which is something completely different. Again, where is the proof that VZ's rollout is income discriminatory?
The County also has the right to establish build-out requirements. 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). Has the right != Must.
Verizon acknowledges that it has not completed construction of the FTTP network in the County – it currently only passes 40% of homes in the County, and the company has stated that it plans to pass no more than 52% of homes by the end of 2006. Verizon has said little or nothing about its plans beyond that time frame. So?
It is also not clear that Verizon has developed an effective technical solution for serving apartment buildings. Funny, I thought not only had a solution been developed but also VZ had already started rolling it out.
Lawton Decl. at 23. Verizon has sought an exception for such buildings, even though that could bear on the issue of compliance with the federal law. October Draft, §3.1.1. The County will be harmed if Verizon begins to offer cable service without respecting the County’s statutory rights, or if the County is left open to a claim under the Cable Act that it has failed to ensure access to residents of the unserved areas on the basis of their income. Again you switch back to the issue of income without any substantiation. Are you saying that only poor people live in apts?!?
The County has the right and duty to address these issues under federal law and it is simply wrong to claim that the County’s authority will not be affected if Verizon is given the right to provide service, or permitted to avoid a franchise process that would allow the County to address these issues. The county may have the right but it certainly isnt forced into creating these hurdles and there is no evidence that delaying the deployment of FIOS video does anything other than hurt the constituents in MC.
Funny how VZ had no trouble negotiating with so many other counties including MC's neighbors. |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | said by TheOtherPete:said by PaulGo:From the response to the Verizon lawsuit by Montgomery County: Indeed, under the Verizon proposal, the County may not even be able to satisfy interests it is obligated to satisfy under federal law, much less ensure that needs and interests of the community are adequately protected as provided by the Cable Act. For example, the County has an affirmative obligation under federal law to “assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.” 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3). You have repeatedly failed to show that VZ is determining where to offer service based on income. When called on it last time you switched from income to unit density which is something completely different. Again, where is the proof that VZ's rollout is income discriminatory? So, Pete, do you think he works for MoCo or Comcast? I'm guessing MoCo, since he has all of their answers down pat. |
|
| said by JohnA:So, Pete, do you think he works for MoCo or Comcast? I'm guessing MoCo, since he has all of their answers down pat. I'd put my money on Comcast; MoCo officials are too apathetic to bother writing such a detailed response |
|
| said by TheOtherPete:said by JohnA:So, Pete, do you think he works for MoCo or Comcast? I'm guessing MoCo, since he has all of their answers down pat. I'd put my money on Comcast; MoCo officials are too apathetic to bother writing such a detailed response don't know. he didn't write it, just copied it from what was already said. from the pr tactic of if you repeat something false enough times, people will start to believe it is true
(I'm talking about the income allegation here) |
|
PaulGo
join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD
1 edit | reply to TheOtherPete
Someday I hope you learn how to read - as I said this is "From the response to the Verizon lawsuit by Montgomery County:".
I do not work either for Comcast or Montgomery County. I just have been screwed one to many times by Verizon. However I believe competition works and I hope Verizon can become a competitor. I feel RCN has helped keep rates down in Montgomery County causing Comcast to offer the VIP package. |
|
| said by PaulGo: I feel RCN has helped keep rates down in Montgomery County causing Comcast to offer the VIP package. RCN is not available in the entire county; why your double-standard with VZ? |
|
PaulGo
join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD | RCN signed a franchise agreement. They had financial difficulties that prevented their expansion throughout the county. |
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to meb
said by meb:said by PaulGo:...Verizon only wants to install it in profitable areas excluding many county residences that are either in areas which less than x number of houses per square mile or that they deem not profitable. To me this is not a level playing field since Comcast has under a county agreement wired these areas. Where has Verizon stated or implied it wants to install FiOS selectively except for density? Comcast has similar density requirements. ... If I read this correctly, VZ just agreed to upgrade their entire footprint in the state of NJ within 6 years, regardless of density.
»www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills···4_I1.HTM
So why is VZ putting up such a fuss in MC about density? Why not agree to upgrade the entire footprint, like they did in NJ? |
|
| quote:
So why is VZ putting up such a fuss in MC about density? Why not agree to upgrade the entire footprint, like they did in NJ?
Could it be the population of Nj. is a lot more than the entire state of Md.? |
|
|
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001
2 edits | said by I wish I knew who I :
Could it be the population of Nj. is a lot more than the entire state of Md.?
Nice try;
State Population Square Miles
New Jersey 8143412 7419
Maryland 5171634 9775
=========================================
So there are 2971578 more people in Nj than Md but Md has 2356 more square miles than Nj... so perhaps its not the population but the additional miles in Md...
No.. I'm not talking about MoCo... but just gross population data...
For additional information try this:
»quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html
--
---Barney |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to I wish I knew who I
I find it hard to believe that every single area in VZ's footprint in NJ is densely populated.
But the areas VZ has refused to commit to upgrading in MCMD are pretty populated. So I'm still left wondering why VZ is willing to commit to upgrading their entire footprint in NJ, but not in MCMD? |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to BarneyBadAss
Don't you think Montgomery County MD is much more densely populated than, say, Frederick County MD? I think the areas VZ is declining to commit to are probably some of the most densely populated in the state.
Does VZ's footprint in NJ only cover densely populated areas? |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | JT,
I can "presume" your comments to be correct... but without some research to back it up I dunno....
I was simply responding to the anon. poster...
It does seem logical the density in Nj at a gross level appears to be greater than Md. on just the first inspection.. but that's as far as I looked...
I'll bet there's some data out there that can address this "mo betta" than I did.... like I said in the initial post.. its just "gross" data...
So on a gross level it seems more reasonable (at least to me) that Vz. would likely be more willing to do the entire state ... just look at the #'s in my prior post..
It should be obvious.... 
--
---Barney |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I don't think it's obvious. Without digging further, I'd presume the "gross" statewide numbers are misleading, particularly without knowing what parts of NJ Verizon serves, and considering that VZ's beef is not with the state of MD, just MC (probably the most densely populated part of the state). |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001
1 edit | JT,
here's a detailed description,
»www.census.gov/popest/gallery/ma···s05.html
look at the
"Download the table associated with this map .xls (24k)
data; perhaps this will say it better than I can.. but recall this was a discussion about Nj. and Vz. supposedly being prepaird to offer service to "EVERYONE" in that state... :vs: just MoCo...
(notice I didn't say anything about whether the decisions were right or wrong... )... just kind of looking at the data...
--
---Barney |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | Verizon is not required to upgrade everyone in the state of NJ. From what I can tell, they're required to upgrade everyone in their current NJ footprint.
Your link doesn't show data for Verizon's current footprint in NJ, so we can't know what the density of VZ's NJ footprint is.
But the data you link to do show that NJ (the entire state) is populated less densely than Montgomery County using the July 2005 estimates, yet:
• Verizon has agreed to upgrade everyone in their NJ footprint within 6 years (at least I think that's what the NJ bill requires); and
• Verizon will not commit to upgrading everyone in MC under any circumstances. |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | JT,
Fair comments all;
Certainly it would be really nice if we had more data from Vz. so more analysis could be performed... but.. I doubt we'll be seeing any of that data unless some nice person from inside Vz. who has access to it would share it 
--
---Barney |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:If I read this correctly, VZ just agreed to upgrade their entire footprint in the state of NJ within 6 years, regardless of density. » www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills···4_I1.HTMSo why is VZ putting up such a fuss in MC about density? Why not agree to upgrade the entire footprint, like they did in NJ? You're off on a tangent, JT. These talks hung on primary issues. They probably never got to density, other than initial proposals. This is one of the straws MC grasped to try and make themselves look better.
The areas you're ranting about are not done. They have to be included in the future build side. If I had to deal with Rockville I'd want ten years too. Might take 7 years of no activity in Rockville, to get reasonable ROW rates out of them. |
|
