  DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Can't trust the union The Union is only interested in what is good for the Union (as it of course should be). Trusting the Union's opinion as to why this is bad is no better than trusting the hack mouthpieces as Verizon telling us why this is good. -- Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
 |  soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01 Irving, TX
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Can't trust the union said by DotMac :The Union is only interested in what is good for the Union (as it of course should be). Trusting the Union's opinion as to why this is bad is no better than trusting the hack mouthpieces as Verizon telling us why this is good. That's true. People try to paint one side or the other as evil, but basically it's about money and protecting one's own interest. If I were in the CWA, I'd be complaining too, hearing the benefits Verizon gives union (associate) employees from some of the folks that work there. I'm sure CWA feels that Fairpoint has no way to agree to the same labor contract Verizon has agreed to. Working in corporate America for a while, the first thing new management does when they take over is look for ways to cut costs. Labor is the biggest costs most companies have.
All unions and union employees aren't bad, but in my personal experience, there are some that think they are entitled to something for nothing (or very little). | |
|
 |   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Netcong, NJ | Regardless though, this much of the PR is true:
"you, the taxpayer, are in essence paying for Verizon to walk away from a neglected portion of their network." | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
edit: December 8th, @08:20AM
| Re: Can't trust the union I would be against that in saying why shouldn't Verizon get to use the same laws that other people and companies get. Why should they be denied a right off that they're legally entitled to?
While Verizon shouldn't get preferential treatment (eg free tax money from Penn taxpayers for fiber than never happened) they shouldn't get unequal penalties either.
If they're entitled to the $600M in write-offs then they should get it. Some people seem to think that a write-off is free tax money when it's not. They just get to pay that much LESS in taxes and virtually every tax payer gets to take tax deductions.
Personally I don't think there shouldn't be any corporate taxes since it just ends up being consumers paying the bill and higher taxes results in less companies wanting to do business here thus less employees (and trickle down effect) who do pay taxes. But that is a debate for another topic.
There should be no "subsidies" at all. I would say let local residents vote to pass a bond for deployment and if the bond passes and that local money is invested the municipality representing those taxpayers repaying the bond take partial ownership in their investment.
Locals pay (other taxpayers win), locals benefit (locals win), locals get more control (locals win). And if locals get a say perhaps they could insist on continuing CWA benefit levels should subscribers wish to be so charitable.
Seems under a plan like that everyone wins. | |
|
 |  |  |   anonononon
@swbell.net
| Re: Can't trust the union So, it makes it ok for big corporations like that should be able to use loop holes that should be nonexistent. Google "Reverse Morris Trust", shame on the pols and the courts for letting this loophole exist. Both customers and workers will lose if this sale goes through. This use to be an all (VT,NH,ME) deal, but since Vt wants no part of this, now they are contemplating a two state deal....What's that tell you! | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Can't trust the union No, just that both the CWA and Verizon are spouting propaganda to get their way and neither can be trusted to provide us the whole truth.
Never take the word of someone who has a vested interest in the outcome cause they'll say only what makes their side look right and omit whatever makes their side look wrong.
That's true not only for this situation but everything. Always ask what is their motivation. In the CWA vs Verizon, the motivation has nothing to do with what is good for the consumer...only what is good for the CWA or what is good for Verizon. | |
|
 |   publius
@comcast.net
| jumping on the-unions-are-evil bandwagon is so easy if you don't know the facts. Has anyone here thought that members of the union are employees? and those employees work with, and know the phone and internet technology better than most anyone. They as a collective, are trying to inform the uneducated that think that this is just some type of attempt to keep their jobs. They know, more than anyone, who Fairpoint is and what they CANT do. Its going to be all of us consumers in new england that pay for it when Fairpoint fails.
Stop being so anti-union and listen to the facts! »www.verizonvsfairpoint.com/index.php | |
|
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Can't trust the union The union, like Verizon, doesn't give two squirts of piss about customers. They're only looking out for their own best interests which includes protecting their generous benefits packages.
Neither side can be trusted to spout anything but propaganda. | |
|
 |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net
| Re: Can't trust the union Do you forget that big ole bad union members are also the customers? Second to that, what is wrong with someone looking out for their job? I assume that at your job if you find out one day that you may be downsized you're just going to say "okay" and apply at Walmart?
You are completely wrong about propaganda. Whether you believe it or not, the union has 95% of the time just regurtitated what Verizon or Fairpoint has said, but tried to bury. FACTS are facts. If you took your blinders off and tried to actually think for a minute that employees might be telling, at minimum, mostly the truth then maybe you would understand this deal. But because you are already biased against unions you can't see the truth, because you don't want to. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Can't trust the union The CWA does not speak for customers, they speak for their membership.
Both the Union and Verizon have no interest in what is best for customer, only what is best for themselves.
Anyone who doesn't see that is a fool or a shill for one side or the other. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net
| Re: Can't trust the union And of course, you being a "shill hater" can see right through everyone, right?
It's not secret that unions speak for their membership, but it is not such a strict interpretation of what happens. Those in unions know that they are the union, as much as the union is them.
They know that in order to exist, they have to work for a company that the consumers want. Fairpoint is not one of those companies. It's like a company coming out right now and saying that they can make Analog television work for the next few years, and make a profit from it. Copper based internet is a dying business. I know as a consumer, I dont want to be part of the next mini Enron. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Can't trust the union Yep, it's pretty easy to identify shills. They lack objectivity and rather just spout an endless stream of talking points.
No one should take the word of any company or group who has a vested interest in the outcome.
Neither the CWA or Verizon can be trusted to tell the truth. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net
| Re: Can't trust the union So, you would agree that you fit into your own "shills" catagory? You know, that whole lacking objectivity and streaming and endless stream of talking points? Sounds just like you.
I have FACTS on my side. I don't need talking points, and my objectivity is not a factor. 1 is 1 no matter how you try to twist it, just like the facts that back up my point.. Where are your facts? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
edit: December 8th, @04:53PM
| Re: Can't trust the union Yep, you got me. I'm a shill...a shill for the common customer who is continuously f*cked over by propagandists like the CWA and Verizon who couldn't care less about us.
The union is only interested in the union. Verizon is only interested in Verizon. Anyone who says different is either a fool, or a shill or a foolish shill just looking to shamelessly plug their lame website.
You can keep on spouting that union propaganda but the only fact in play here is money. Thankfully DSLReports readers are smart enough to see through the CWA and VZ smokescreen despite their shill mouthpieces vomiting an endless stream of BS talking points like a broken record.
The union wants Verizon to stay 'cause it means more money for the union.
Verizon wants to bail 'cause it means a quick 1/2 a billion when they bail.
Neither side gives two squirts of piss about what is good for the customers.
That's all we need to know.
With that I'm done. My policy is not to feed shills and I see I'm in violation of my policy. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net | Re: Can't trust the union DotMac, Thank you for admitting that you're a shill.
I accept your apology.
Hopefully other DSLreports readers like myself will not succumb to your lack of objectivity and useless talking points. | |
|
  Acuity
join:2002-06-22 Londonderry, NH | long live Verizon I hope this doesn't go through. Even before the fuss started over here, the research that I did showed Fairpoint wasn't interested in fiber optics at all. What a horrible loss for New Hampshire it would be if Fairpoint took over. | |
|
 |  jtel
join:2005-06-28 Bristol, RI
·Cox HSI
| Re: long live Verizon said by Acuity :I hope this doesn't go through. Even before the fuss started over here, the research that I did showed Fairpoint wasn't interested in fiber optics at all. What a horrible loss for New Hampshire it would be if Fairpoint took over. On the other hand how much of those states have FIOS rolled out? Some of southern New Hampshire?
If they feel the area is unprofitable and this doesn't go through what happens then? Do they just do the absolute minimum and wring what they can from the area?
Unfortunately it seems like a no win situation. Imagine what Qwest is up against? The vast majority of their territory is more rural than northern New England (well it looks that way anyway). | |
|
 bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA
| No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business Companies must focus on serving the best interests of their owners. ME, VT and NH simply isn't a lucrative market. That's the fault of the residents and business of those states, not Verizon's fault. The residents and businesses of those states, including its union members, should bear the brunt of the ramifications of their lack of profit potential.
If people really want a society with socialist tendencies, where businesses must serve society's best interests, then they should have the ganas to vote leaders into office who actually support that. It is duplicitous of people to clamor for more social conscience on the part of corporations, which ostensibly exist solely to generate profit, while they themselves are unwilling to subject themselves to that manner of social obligation. | |
|
 |   publius
@comcast.net
| Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business ...said the guy from massachusetts. Don't suppose you have FIOS in Burlington?
You do know that if this sale is approved Verizon wants to sell most of western and southern mass? So that would seem to a problem in your state, wouldn't it? Currently, the state of NH has fios installed in 28 communities, so I think the socialist state of NH is doing just fine thank you.
We are all fighting against Verizon leaving because they made a deal with the state governments to install broadband in exchange for reduced or eliminated taxes. Where is the social justice in them saving hundreds of millions of dollars over the past all the while not upgrading broadband, and THEN using a BS reverse morris trust tax loophole to make ANOTHER $600 million? We should all just let them take their money and walk away because we're not socialist? No way! I say we hold them to their promises and not let them take the easy way out while selling to a company that CANNOT handle it currently owned company, never mind expanding by 300%?
Sorry I didn't use any big words, I'll open my dictionary next time. | |
|
 |  |   vermonster
@charter.com
| Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business I love how FairPoint's latest TV ad for the merger (yes, they have to use TV ads to convince the people to support them.. wonder where the money for that comes from) mentions using the latest technology for broadband, when FairPoint has no interest in deploying FTTH anytime soon. Also, the fact they use a political voice to say "FairPoint: Connecting New England to a brighter future" in their commercials is just funny. FairPoint in VT has more complaints than any other POTS carrier, has slower and more expensive broadband, doesn't even have unlimited long distance packages, and simply can't acquire the debt load. If anything, Verizon should take over the few FairPoint markets here in VT and give us reasonably priced service.
-A | |
|
 |  |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA | Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business said by vermonster :
If anything, Verizon should take over the few FairPoint markets here in VT and give us reasonably priced service. Why? What possible rationale can you have to assert that? | |
|
 |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA
| said by publius :
...said the guy from massachusetts. Don't suppose you have FIOS in Burlington? You suppose wrong. FIOS does provide service in Burlington.
Verizon should be allowed to sell whatever it wants. So should Comcast. If customers want to be serviced by an industry leader, then they need to make it such that offering them service is more profitable.
said by publius :
So that would seem to a problem in your state, wouldn't it? It isn't a "problem".
said by publius :
We are all fighting against Verizon leaving because they made a deal with the state governments to install broadband in exchange for reduced or eliminated taxes. Please post links to the actual wording of the agreements that were made. Show me that it precludes them from selling their terrestrial business to Fairpoint.
Don't blame Verizon for your area's lack of value as a market. | |
|
 |  |  |   Publius
@comcast.net
| Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business "Please post links to the actual wording of the agreements that were made. Show me that it precludes them from selling their terrestrial business to Fairpoint."
Hows this for starters?
Pursuant to 35A M.R.S.A. § 1104, [n]o public utility may abandon all or part ofits plant, property or system necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, or discontinue the service which it is providing to the public by the use of such facilities, without first securing the commissions approval. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA | Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business Selling off a division is not "abandoning". | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net | Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business it is if you are screwing off everyone in the region. Especially after you've received tax breaks for 10 years and are expecting another HUGE tax break. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA
| Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business You're mistaken. I know you wish that were the case, but that's not reality. You only want Verizon to retain the division because you know that Fairpoint will provide a lower grade of service, one more appropriate for the less profitable market. However, the strategy is sound, legal, and almost inevitable without committing a grievous act of governmental intervention in the free market. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net
| Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business See, that's the thing, its not legal. Thats why they have to go through the whole process of asking for permission. It is NOT legal for a Public Utility to just think they can walk in without a plan, without capital, without a viable product. The PUC's are in charge to make sure that the next company can serve the public. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA | Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business However the threshold is much lower than you would have people believe. There is NO requirement that the new incumbent be one of the top companies. All that is required is demonstration of minimal capabilities by the new incumbent. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net | Re: No Company Required to Maintain a Low Profit Business "minimal" is the operative word. | |
|
 |  |  |   publius
@comcast.net | said by bicker:
"Don't blame Verizon for your area's lack of value as a market."
um, I have Fios. thanks for asking | |
|
  pundekargmailcom
@ac.in | to know about broadband service provider dear sir, iwant to know about the company that provide the broadband service please send me the info on this thank you | |
|
  vermonster
@charter.com | huh? My proposal of VZ to takeover FP properties was a joke, not serious.
-A | |
|
 |
|
 |