Unions Want FCC To Kill Verizon/Frontier Deal Opposition has gotten particularly heated in West Virginia Afraid that Verizon's sale of their landlines and DSL network to Frontier Communications will result in another Fairpoint or Hawaiian Telcom, unions in West Virginia have been working overtime to scuttle the deal with some solid results. The unions have been running ads locally complaining the deal is good for nobody but Verizon, and have been successfully lobbying to pass a law that would make Verizon's favorite tax-dogding financial move (the Reverse Morris Trust, which allows them to sell off networks without paying any taxes) illegal. The unions last week visited the FCC to ask the agency to reject the deal: Following the rally, CWA President Larry Cohen, Collins and a group of CWA members met with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. Collins and other CWAers also met with the chief of staff for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other FCC officials. Inside the FCC, CWA presented Commissioner Copps with letters from 71 West Virginia legislators who oppose the deal; letters expressing concern or opposition from 18 county commissions, and petitions from more than 5,000 West Virginia citizens calling on the state Public Service Commission to reject the deal. Unions have significantly more pull in West Virginia largely because it's a less profitable state Verizon has never really cared much about. Regulators in the state have repeatedly complained that Verizon has let infrastructure there crumble, union workers say they aren't being given the tools to do their jobs, and consumer complaints in the state have consistently risen as a result. As we've explored, Verizon is now pulling out of rural America. How much luck unions have in getting the FCC to listen isn't clear. It's highly unlikely that the FCC will ban the deal, though they will probably try to impose some conditions protecting consumers in the 14 impacted states. Of course traditionally, conditions mean nothing if nobody bothers to enforce them, and that's been a problem with previous Verizon deals of this kind, and telecom deals in general.
|
approval from:
ArrayList 
Linklist
| Unions vs. Phone Companies Reminds me of the old Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's, and the question, "Why can't they both lose?" | |
|  | | | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies No kidding. Neither the Union or Verizon gives two shits about the customers in this area. Frontier wants the customers and probably wants to offer service but they are in over their heads and need some serious help. | |
| | | | | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies I'm no union fan, but at least this is semi-useful. They still have too much power, though.
--
Ali
Geos Communications Representative | |
| | | | | | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies I don't think the union has the power you say (or so I was told by the union) As a former VZW worker in NY, I think the unions are as terrible as the company itself Whenever I asked fior help, they turned a blind eye to my situation and others (they had their favorites) I have seen 5 people die due to the stress that was put on them and being very ill they were not really able to handle it. Forget about asking for a location that you could work at that was closer to you, put that in a hardship form with the doctor telling them you should be moved and all you got was "well the company does what it wants" I'm sorry that I had any union and that I paid for it, ha help?? Where?? Sorry to say but I have no pity left for anyone losing their job now because we knew that Ivan was an asshole and actually thought he could be a Czar, but did you ever think that the people that were supposed to "help" you would stick it up your bung hole with no grease?? | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by battleop:No kidding. Neither the Union or Verizon gives two shits about the customers in this area. Not taking either side of the argument, but unions don't exist to "give two shits about the customers in this area". They originally exist to serve the telecom worker. Their giving two shits is only to the extent that the benefit to consumers runs parallel with that of the worker. | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies Just as corporations exist to only enhance shareholder value; nothing more. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Suddenlink
| I have Verizon's 7.1 DSL package and it has been rock-solid for me for years. I'm not a proponent or opponent of the sale; I have no stake in Verizon, and luckily I live in an area in which I have a choice of providers. If the service degrades or the prices rise, I'll switch to another broadband provider. The problem for a significant portion of the WV population is a lack of choice... it's Verizon or nothing. | |
| | | | | | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies I agree. I live in WV and the ONLY choice I have is VZN. Suddenlink won't come out here (even though I only live 0.5 miles from their nearest connection) and the only speed that is available to me is 1 and 1.5 mbps (which isn't much of an upgrade)... | |
|
| | Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | Too bad they couldn't leave FIOS TV operations in Indiana, Washington and Oregon alone.
They've invested big bucks here installing an advanced fiber optic network. Handing it over to Frontier would be akin to giving a motorcycle to a child used to riding a tricycle.
What do they know about providing the kind of top-of-the-line TV service that Verizon offers, anyway?
Mark F | |
|
| | | OK. Let Verizon sell the phone system.
No more Verizon.
No more Union.
At last of all, no phone/DSL/video....
...be careful what you wish for. | |
| | | | | Re: Unions vs. Phone Companies you don't want them to sell it. cause then the unions would go too.
Why not just issue pull out notices to the states that feel this way and let them figure out how to run the network.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com ONLINE STORE NOW ONLINE! up to 50% off SRP of Happy Tails Spa products. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| They still need approvals from the FCC, West Virginia, Illinois and Washington state regulatory commissions. If anyone knows of others, please add them.
(Some of the 14 states do not require utility commission approval on this. Indiana, one of the most impacted states for this transaction, does not require such approval.)
Already approved in: California, Nevada, South Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, Oregon.
Agree with Karl on opinion on the "approvals with conditions" conclusion. Feds/State regulators want to cover their exposure, in case of future problems. It also allows them to justify their existence. | |
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: They still need approvals from There's no reason to think the White House won't just step in an unilaterally declare that the unions win; it's been SOP for this administration so far. | |
| | | | | Re: They still need approvals from Union or no union, those who complain about their own taxes being high, or tax rates in general being high should be against the deal anyway.
You can't lower tax RATES if you keep giving tax BREAKS!
(Yes, that will be my campaign slogan one day, Copyright 2010.) | |
| | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: They still need approvals from Corporate tax rates in the US are far too high, especially since they're paid by consumers in the first place.
I'm not sure what your campaign slogan actually means, but it's catchy and that's usually good enough. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They still need approvals from Exactly, but the question becomes WHY are they high, probably because huge companies like Verizon participate in huge transactions like this that are exempt from taxes, so then everyone else ends up making up the difference. | |
| | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by jester121:Corporate tax rates in the US are far too high, especially since they're paid by consumers in the first place. You don't know much about corporate tax law, do you? | |
| | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: They still need approvals from said by Van:said by jester121:Corporate tax rates in the US are far too high, especially since they're paid by consumers in the first place. You don't know much about corporate tax law, do you? Corporate taxes are stupid to begin with. All corporate taxes are merely passed on to customers thru higher prices. Raising taxes on corporations just means those taxes are ultimately paid for by the customers. Only populists cling to the idea that by taxing the "evil" corporations, will the little guy win.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® | |
| | | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: They still need approvals from said by Linklist:said by Van:said by jester121:Corporate tax rates in the US are far too high, especially since they're paid by consumers in the first place. You don't know much about corporate tax law, do you? Corporate taxes are stupid to begin with. All corporate taxes are merely passed on to customers thru higher prices. Raising taxes on corporations just means those taxes are ultimately paid for by the customers. Only populists cling to the idea that by taxing the "evil" corporations, will the little guy win. Except many if not most of the sizeable companies in this country pay little to no taxes.
GE is outraged at the thought of higher taxes! They will need to cut jobs and kill products! Except....they pay none as do most companies with any sort of foreign jurisdiction | |
| | | | | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: They still need approvals from said by Van:GE is outraged at the thought of higher taxes! They will need to cut jobs and kill products! Except....they pay none as do most companies with any sort of foreign jurisdiction Your talking points memo probably didn't mention this, but GE paid $2.5 billion in taxes (total cash outlay) for 2009. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: They still need approvals from LOL! That's so funny, I see what you did there, Faux News instead of Fox News!!  Grow up.
I actually went and downloaded the 2009 annual report and read through the relevant parts of the 124 page document, starting on page 30. It's probably a bit complicated for you, since you haven't even mastered DSLR registration yet.
»www.ge.com/ar2009/pdf/ge_ar_2009.pdf | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: They still need approvals from said by jester121:LOL! That's so funny, I see what you did there, Faux News instead of Fox News!! Grow up. I actually went and downloaded the 2009 annual report and read through the relevant parts of the 124 page document, starting on page 30. It's probably a bit complicated for you, since you haven't even mastered DSLR registration yet. » www.ge.com/ar2009/pdf/ge_ar_2009.pdf jester you don't know what you are talking about. I just want to clear this up for others who may actually believe you do ...
"Your talking points memo probably didn't mention this, but GE paid $2.5 billion in taxes (total cash outlay) for 2009."
you should read through the annual report again and this time thoroughly.
there is both GE and GECS, and they file a consolidated federal income tax return that enables GE to use GECS deductions and credits, to reduce taxes that would be otherwise paid by GE.
the cash payment was from GE to GECS. it says all this on page 31 on the left column.
if you go one page earlier, to 30, on the right column, look "Income taxes (benefit) on consolidated earnings from continuing operations were (10.5%) in 2009..."
the (benefit) part of that means effectively negative 10% taxes. yes, a negative.
go to page 91 at the bottom of the chart and you see a total (benefit) in 2009 of "$(1,090)", in millions, -- that's the billion faux was talking about, and it's a BENEFIT. and he is right (along with Forbes). so perhaps the "Faux News" bit was appropriate.
on page 93 you can reconcile all this, and see at bottom of 2009 an actual income tax rate of "(10.5)%"
so jester you are totally misinformed.
did you just not think Forbes knew what they were talking about? | |
| | | | | | | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: They still need approvals from Did you know that cyber stalking is a crime in some states? If you're going to search through my posting history and post rebuttals to everything I say, well, that will be very creepy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | As another poster corrected you, they paid none for the exact reason I posted.
Your inability to factor in the credits given are exactly what I am talking about | |
|
| | | | | |  halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
1 edit | Taxing corporations is just another form of social engineering. Tax things that you want to discourage or limit, tax breaks to things you want to encourage or promote. It is a way for government to help pick the winners and losers in the corporate world.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: They still need approvals from said by halfband:Taxing corporations is just another form of social engineering. Tax things that you want to discourage or limit, tax breaks to things you want to encourage or promote. It is a way for government to help pick the winners and losers in the corporate world. And get money to fund federal projects that we would cry bitterly about without | |
|
| | | | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Linklist:Corporate taxes are stupid to begin with. All corporate taxes are merely passed on to customers thru higher prices. Raising taxes on corporations just means those taxes are ultimately paid for by the customers. Only populists cling to the idea that by taxing the "evil" corporations, will the little guy win. Yes and NO.
sure they (taxes) are passed on to the consumers OF THAT CORP's products, ie If I don't use verizon frontiers product WHY should I help pay their tax liablity?
It is reasonable for Corp. to pay taxes on services/product offer, IF they induce ANY cost that would otherwise be spread among ALL consumers, even if they have a limit customer base. | |
|
| | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | said by Van:You don't know much about corporate tax law, do you? You clearly don't know anything about economics.
12% of federal tax revenue comes from corporations, all of which are owned by... people. People who already paid tax on the money they paid to the corporation, and who will pay divident taxes or capital gains taxes if they invest in corporations. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Bob61571:Agree with Karl on opinion on the "approvals with conditions" conclusion. Feds/State regulators want to cover their exposure, in case of future problems. It also allows them to justify their existence. Also, imposed conditions often just make the buying company even MORE likely to fail by experiencing problems; higher costs; etc.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® | |
| | | | | Re: They still need approvals from said by Linklist:said by Bob61571:Agree with Karl on opinion on the "approvals with conditions" conclusion. Feds/State regulators want to cover their exposure, in case of future problems. It also allows them to justify their existence. Also, imposed conditions often just make the buying company even MORE likely to fail by experiencing problems; higher costs; etc. Thanks for the laugh. I supposed the reason they failed had NOTHING to do with mismanagement... Besides that, if they didn't like the terms of the deal they shouldn't have bought it. | |
|
| Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | Yes, Indiana will be most impacted if the deal goes through.
Frontier will struggle to provide even a semblance of what Verizon has here, especially if/when they take over the FIOS TV operations.
It may be a very tumultuous summer, and beyond, for FIOS TV subscribers in the affected areas. And, disappointing, as well.
Mark F | |
|
| | | | Re: vz thugs just look at what they did in my state of maine !!! | |
| | | | said by xdeadhead:this deal will benefit verizon and its shareholders only. of course thats what business is about, but at some point one has to ask " at what cost?" For the most part you are correct, but every business still has a moral and legal obligation to their consumers, their communities, and their employees. | |
| | |  wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA | Re: vz thugs Unfortunately the only responsibility that Corporations have is to return the highest profit level possible to their investors. There is no moral obligation on corporations. Legally they will do whatever returns the most profit. If the penalty for breaking the law is more than they would gain by breaking the law then they won't do it, however if the penalty does not outweigh the gain of breaking the law then they will do it. Corporations are economic sharks, which is why we need tight regulatory oversight of corporations that control the nations telecom infrastructure. | |
| | | | | Legal, maybe, but moral... HA! | |
|
| | Just spin it off I wonder if the whole thing won't go through, why won't Verizon just spin off that part of the system as an independent unit?
If they don't want to provide service there - fine, just make it separate company. And then union can buy it out, and everyone will be happy 
--
Rants about life, politics, technology | |
| |  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Re: Just spin it off
said by bugabuga:I wonder if the whole thing won't go through, why won't Verizon just spin off that part of the system as an independent unit? If they don't want to provide service there - fine, just make it separate company. And then union can buy it out, and everyone will be happy It's probably too late anyway, the cat is out of the bag, but Verizon was trying to get rid of obsolete Infrastructure and Equipment and maybe some of the Dead Weight Employee's. That's why the Union is stepping in, they saw the writing on the wall. So Verizon doesn't want to spin anything off, they wanted no part of this. As for CWA buying anything, I don't think they have the knowledge or the money, besides, CWA just wants to hang on and let Verizon pick up the bill. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
·Comcast
1 edit | Tax them I think the idea of Verizon dropping people left & right, just sucks.... However, there is nothing to stop business from deciding where they want to provide service (just like no one can tell you where you must live).
But I strongly disagree on them getting away with selling and making a profit, TAX FREE. 
If the little guy has to pay for every dollar he/she earns... So should the big guy. I pay my dues and so should you VERIZON.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV | |
| scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Embarq Now Centu..
| What gets me .. Is that Verizon is finding these suckers (companies to sell the assets to through the RMT) in spite of the track record of these transactions to date....
There must be an awful lot of stupid small telecom company presidents / Board of Directors with egos overriding their common sense.... | |
| cptmilesPremium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN | Verizon's Stock Ownership I think I read somewhere that not only will Verizon not have to pay taxes using the RMT but that Verizon will effectively own the majority of Frontier, thus when Frontier bankrupts and the stock goes to single digits, Verizon will be able to write off billions worth of losses, thus they won't have to pay taxes for years to come. I know Verizon doesn't want these territories back once they do the deal, but if they did get them back they wouldn't have that pesky union to deal with. How convenient.
Personally I think each state should force Verizon and Frontier into price mediation to include appropriate taxation and if Verizon isn't willing to sell for the price they come up with, then fine the shit out of them until 100 percent of their subs can get 4/1 service as advised by the FCC Broadband plan. | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
2 edits | Re: Verizon's Stock Ownership said by cptmiles:I think I read somewhere that not only will Verizon not have to pay taxes using the RMT but that Verizon will effectively own the majority of Frontier, Verizon will NOT own any part of Frontier, but Verizon shareholders will effectively own the majority of the new Frontier. Also, this is not a merger, as some also falsely believe.
As part of the RMT, Verizon's shareholders will eventually receive shares in Frontier, and become majority owners (68%)
of the new Frontier. Why 68%? The Spun Off Verizon lines are about double the number of the current Frontier lines.
The Verizon shareholders are being compensated for the Spun Off properties(and their fractional ownership) in them. Those shareholders would pay income taxes when/if they sell their new Frontier shares for a gain.
It will be interesting to see the day that the Verizon shareholders receive the Spun Off properties/new Frontier shares. In theory, Verizon's shares will drop in value, by the value of these transferred properties. | |
| | | | the did the same to fairpoint and new england verizon holds 9 out of 12 seats on board of directors Verizon got over $100 million from the RMT for the sale to fairpoint | |
|
kjpwv
join:2006-10-24
Fairmont, WV Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Find a better company The real problem lies in no company with half a brain would ever put up money for the system once they actually see it. The combination of crumbling copper on top of the fact WV is one of the last union strongholds, makes its unsellable without a good deal of party tricks.
Then there is insanity, Morgantown seems to think its in the running for google fiber... and I bought a bridge in Brooklyn yesterday.
There is no copper or for that matter FTTH solution for WV, tear it all down put up 4g towers, call it a day. You might see it as slow, but 7+ Mb/s in the hollers would be revolutionary.
--
HN7000S G16 970Mhz | |
| WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | I would love to see The posters on this forum run a company.
I do not see a company paying any income taxes. Property taxes and some taxes as fees if they are in a business that has some need for regulators / inspectors. I have seen too many companies do really stupid things to keep from paying taxes. All the accounting people would have to add to the value of the company instead of being used to avoid taxes. In the end only people really pay taxes as posted above companies just shift the bill from the right hand to the left hand and pass it to the customer. | |
|  ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Awww. Is somebody (unions) getting jealous of the prospect of not being able to get a piece of something that isn't theirs in the first place? | |
| | | Interesting question.. who has more political clout in Washington? Unions vs Telecoms? The content people probably have more money to spend on bribes than the unions. | |
| Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Midwest
| Selling off outside lines For those of you that think Union Employees dont give a shit. Youre dead wrong, I worked for the customer for 32+ years before I retired, and it was because of the customer, a happy customer I had a job.
Towards the end, after telcos were becoming less profitable, that the employees were fighting to do the job right and being told there wasnt the money to do it.
Thus "Plant" (cables,infrastructure) deteriorated and continues to do so.
We would like to fix everything 100%, but due to force cutbacks, and budget constraints, its become a bandaid.
Verizon and ATT would gladly dump the outside copper, employees and the expense and RUN.
Its all about the money, Fairpoint cant seriously think they can buy outside plant and make any money.
I suspect they are going to be in a position to get a bailout from the Govt, so they can keep the subscriber lines going.
Letting Verizon and or ATT sell them off is a bad move. | |
| | st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | Re: Selling off outside lines said by sbcretired:For those of you that think Union Employees dont give a shit. swearing won't get you what you want. | |
|
| | Verizon has just not offered the union enough The Unions will sell out if the price is right. In Frederick County Maryland and surrounding areas the unions have sold out more jobs to Mexico than can be imagined. A tanning corporation that made leather seats for cars made in America just to name one. If Verizon wants Frontier they will get it. They just haven't offered the right price to the union. | |
| | | | Re: Verizon has just not offered the union enough Another anti-labor moron heard from ---
For your sorely-needed information, there is not, nor has there ever been, such thing as a "union" that "sells out jobs".
Your statement thet "the unions have sold out more jobs to Mexico than can be imagined" is not only completely wrong, it's actually an attack on ALL of the the working people of this nation -- whether they be union members or not.
You're very quick to throw down a lot of anti-union smoke screen, but there was not even an ATTEMPT to show some sort of evidence to support your ridiculous assumptions.
First off, "the union" doesn't own or operate Verizon and/or Frontier -- so therefore "the union" can have NO SAY in the merger/deal.
More importantly, your anti-union blatherings fail to mention that it was the combination of Labor Unions and a Progressive (Democrat-controlled) Congress that brought America's middle-class standard-of-living to be the highest in the history of the world!!
Your anti-union tirade also failed to mention that America's middle class has been on a steady decline as the nation has moved to the political right -- away from the principles, ideas, and ideals that brought freedom, security, and prosperity to America for over four decades.
Democrats brought security, freedom, and prosperity to America through the toughest of times -- only to have it's middle-class ravaged by corporate greed and Rupert Murdoch's extremist ideaologies foisted on us by Republican "representatives" that have no intention of representing anything but their own extremely narrow and counterproductive viewpoints.
One more thing:
That company that moved to Mexico DID NOT go to Mexico because of any union's "sell-out" !!
For you to even imply that the company that you mentioned moved to Mexico because they wanted to protect American jobs -- and that "the union" wouldn't let them stay here -- is pure, unadultereted insanity !!
That company moved to Mexico to MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS -- but they tell you and me that they HAD to go off-shore "in order to remain competitive" .
Of course they use "unions" as their excuse -- and there are a plenty of fools that buy into their anti-worker propaganda !!
It's not labor-unions that send jobs off-shore -- it's stupid people that argue and vote against their own interests.
These companies that re-locate offshore don't owe the American Worker a damned thing, and they're NOT about to change that philosophy -- EVER !!! | |
|
| |
|
|
·
