boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to Eat Me
Re: business is business
said by Eat Me  :
You're forgetting one thing though. Cable was built with private funds, whereas the telco's are using taxpayer money.
Ummm... this myth has been dispelled long ago. Telcos are private industry- not public. The way to tell the difference is this: Public industry does not trade on the stock market- whereas private industry does. Another clue: Public industries don't revolve around "profit margins". If telcos were public and not private, no one would be bitching about "profits" being too high or "stock options" for executives.
Boogie |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
4 edits | reply to boogie74
You forgot something...if you say something supportive of the CLECs, you're "pro-consumer". If you say something supportive of the Bells, you are a "shill".
The Telecom Act has been in effect since 1996. Since then there has been substantial technological upgrades and broadband penetration...and it's not because the CLECs have been hard at work building out their network. What have these CLECs been doing for the last eight years to improve things? This is less about interference from a monopoly and more about CLEC management being so lame that most of them can't stay out of bankruptcy court even after having a fully-functional network handed to them on a silver platter.
And boogie is right about the "but RBOCs get government breaks" bit. Most of the broadband infrastructure was implemented after the Telecomm Act, so arguing that AT&T got a right-of-way in 1920 now entitles every Joe Telco to a free ride on Ma Bell's bus is just a red herring...and a dumb one at that. If that's really true, the CLECs are an equal party to the BS since they are using the exact same network the taxpayers allegedly subsidized.
Peace,
mocycler
www.lp.org |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to JohnA
You're forgetting one thing though. Cable was built with private funds, whereas the telco's are using taxpayer money. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :
Interests could mean monetary only investments, no problem there.
My position is that if a company has moved operations and is making payroll to either permanent or contract off-shore employees, that company should not be allowed to benefit from incentives or tax breaks. Whether domestic job creation is intentional or merely a byproduct of these tax incentives, the benefit should go to America and no other country.
Unfortunately, unless you have a reasonable way of having regulatory oversight over exact accounting and payrolls for every US company, there is no way whatsoever to say that the exact amount of tax incentives can be applied ONLY to paying for US jobs.
There is absolutely no way to trace this. One might as well argue that parents should only get a tax write off for each child if they can prove that they spend the amount in tax savings for that child and nothing else. How does one insure this at all? Perhaps the tax savings for mortgage interest should be required to be accounted for and proven to go toward home improvement expenses only? Again- not possible- not even reasonable.
Further, to try to apply such a rule to a company so as to require that all employment (whether direct or to the "nth degree"- meaning any vendor that has overseas contracts, etc) be only in the US if any tax incentives are to be received at all would be impossible. There is just no way to do this. In a global economy, you'd have no companies (US or otherwise) getting ANY tax incentives to do anything! That includes food distribution from the US.
One must realize that companies are at an advantage (that we WANT in the US) when they go global- even if it means shipping some jobs overseas. This is a trade-off. We agree to create jobs in other countries if they agree to purchase our products at higher tariffed prices. It's all business. This is no attempt to screw over the "Average Joe" (which btw, wasn't the best tv show in the land).
Boogie |
|
Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :
Regarding tax breaks, I know for a fact that Verizon off-shores to India which means they are playing in a global economy.
If they buy Alcatel or Nortel equipment, they are playing in a global economy.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to boogie74
Interests could mean monetary only investments, no problem there.
My position is that if a company has moved operations and is making payroll to either permanent or contract off-shore employees, that company should not be allowed to benefit from incentives or tax breaks. Whether domestic job creation is intentional or merely a byproduct of these tax incentives, the benefit should go to America and no other country. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :
Regarding tax breaks, I know for a fact that Verizon off-shores to India which means they are playing in a global economy. Since they and any others involved in off-shoring are benefitting at the expense of American tax payers any and all tax breaks should stop immediately. Furthermore they should receive equal treatment as foreign companies seeking to expand into American.
About infrastructure sharing, the law is what it is until congress changes it or the courts declare it unconstitutional.
So you now admit they broke their promises?
So your position is that any company that has any offshore interests should receive no tax breaks?
As far as infrastructure sharing goes, your point is correct. The set out process for following legislation is and always has been followed. That means that companies will ALWAYS go to court to clarify and re-negotiate the terms of how laws are interpreted. It's those that bitch about this process that need the education.
Boogie |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :
Regarding tax breaks, I know for a fact that Verizon off-shores to India which means they are playing in a global economy
Do you think they could be as competitive if they were paying american workers full minimum wage instead of people in india 50cents to 1.50/hour? that cuts those expenses 75% and theres no benefits or unions to squabble with(thats just gravy on top)
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to boogie74
Regarding tax breaks, I know for a fact that Verizon off-shores to India which means they are playing in a global economy. Since they and any others involved in off-shoring are benefitting at the expense of American tax payers any and all tax breaks should stop immediately. Furthermore they should receive equal treatment as foreign companies seeking to expand into American.
About infrastructure sharing, the law is what it is until congress changes it or the courts declare it unconstitutional.
So you now admit they broke their promises? |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA | reply to JohnA
Well, I hope that since 96 won't be enough, maybe massive market decline from cable will force the Bells to do something- Fiber or wireless. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to rit56
said by rit56 :
I like the bit where he evaded the part about opening their lines to competitors. As far as I'm concerned if they keep getting tax breaks like they do and if we are still forced to pay the Universal Slush Fund then they should be made to allow competitors to use the lines. Their using public funds so we should benefit.
USF doesn't pay for this. Further, tax breaks go to pretty much ALL companies- regardless of the industry- for many reasons. This does not have anything to do with the sharing of networks at all.
I think that we should all get a free car from every auto-manufacturer since they get tax breaks for meeting emissions standards. Afterall, they're using "public money" to make products and market them.
I also think that since YOU own a home and I only rent- and YOU get a tax break for owning a home and I don't, I should get to move in with you rent free! Afterall, you're using MY tax dollars to do whatever you please with and I'm not getting anything from the deal!
PLEASE! Give it up. Amazing how the "anti-competitive" lawsuits have stopped coming from groups like Voices For Choices and C.A.L.L.S. (front groups for AT&T). Could that have anything to do with the fact that all 50 states now have the major RBOC able to sell long distance?
It's time for companies to compete now folks. Bitching about a "broken" promise from 1993 isn't gonna get you anywhere.
Boogie |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to rit56
Sharing has been the whole drawback to Verizon fiber. Cable is not forced to share their lines and they do digital telephone on them. If you step back and look at Verizon's competition, you can't hardly expect them to make that kind of investment, just so someone else can use it to sell their service, over their lines, with someone else's brand name on it, like they're forced to do with POTS. |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| I like the bit where he evaded the part about opening their lines to competitors. As far as I'm concerned if they keep getting tax breaks like they do and if we are still forced to pay the Universal Slush Fund then they should be made to allow competitors to use the lines. Their using public funds so we should benefit. |
|
