Pennsylvania ShowdownTelcos and consumer groups square off in PA ( old news - 02:35PM Thursday Aug 28 2003) tags: telco · legislationConsumer groups and telco executives have never really gotten along; a point that was made crystal clear by debates in Pennsylvania this week over the state's broadband infrastructure. - Pennsylvania is no stranger to broadband debate among telcos and their opponents. In 1994 Verizon (then Bell Atlantic) struck a landmark deal with the state, which provided Verizon with hefty financial incentives if they met certain broadband rollout criteria. It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years wound up clocking in at somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars. Out of the 2.1 billion dollars received in the deal, $1.5 billion of it consisted of extra tax deductions. In return for said incentives, Bell Atlantic agreed to have 20% of the state broadband wired by 1998, and 50% by 2004. By 2015, broadband was destined to be run throughout the state to the majority of Verizon's customers. It's important to note that this wasn't DSL they were talking about...but 45MB/s symmetrical fiber service right to the door of homes and businesses. The incentives received were very real; the likelihood of deploying such bandwidth was not. Verizon executives argue the company has spent billions for new network equipment and fiber-optic lines, to meet the terms laid out in the 1995 agreement. Ronald F. Weigel, director of government relations for Verizon's Pennsylvania division, responded to claims by consumer groups like Teletruth by claiming such speeds were available, provided customers were willing to pay for it. "I don't care if they're in Altoona or Philadelphia, we're prepared to offer it," Weigel recently said. In spring of 2002 the Pennsylvania PUC began to voice concerns that the terms of the agreement were not being met, with 1.5Mbps connectivity available, but evidence of scattered deployment. "This capability falls short of Verizon's commitment; Verizon committed to providing two-way broadband capability of at least 45 Mbps," noted Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission member Terrance J. Fitzpatrick in a statement. "The Commission accepted this commitment, and approved the Plan based upon that commitment."The Pennsylvania PUC ordered Verizon to file a report on how it intended to upgrade the network and fulfill its promises of 45Mbps connectivity. The plan was submitted by Verizon amidst strong criticism from groups such as the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocates. The debate over Verizon deployments in Pennsylvania simmered until this summer, when state legislators voted 4-1 to essentially disband the agreement, and let Verizon off the hook; despite already awarded financial incentives. Commissioner Glen Thomas defended his ruling: "As Pennsylvania considers its telecommunications policy of the future, I believe that our collective energies will be best spent on creating a climate that allows factors such as competition and demand to flourish."Fitzpatrick was the lone dissenting voice, and issued his displeasure at the ruling, noting that he did not "believe this decision is equitable to customers in light of the value to Verizon of being released from its prior obligation."With the original deal loosened drastically and the remaining obligations set to expire at the end of the year, the debate has intensified this week as various broadband bills emerge to foster deployment. Two bills exist at the time being; one is favored by consumer groups, the other is Verizon backed legislation. House Bill 1669 has been dubbed "outrageous" and a "desperate piece of legislation" by telco executives. The bill is designed primarily to service under-served areas, and would be funded by an assessment on operating revenues of the state. The bill would also make automatic enrollment in the federal life line program mandatory; the fund provides discounted phone service to low-income residents. At the moment, low-income residents have to sign up for the discounts, which many aren't aware even exist. The bill would also create an 18-member state Broadband Infrastructure Authority, tasked with collecting to $190 million in fees annually from local phone providers to ensure the state's broadband infrastructure was well funded and deployed quickly. Verizon of Pennsylvania President James O'Rourke says HB 1669 "jeopardizes the capital budgets of the very companies that are building advanced telecom networks." Verizon, Sprint and company are instead backing House Bill 30, legislation that would scale back deployment requirements and remove certain restrictions on rate hikes. According to state Consumer Advocate Irwin Popowsky, the bill would allow Verizon to collect an additional $3 billion by the time the deployments were scheduled to be completed in 2015. Naturally consumer groups like Teletruth, Citizens for Consumer Justice, and the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocates have had plenty to say about doling out additional incentives to telcos after the state's last agreement wasn't fully adhered to. Accusations and insults flew furiously at public hearings this week in Pittsburgh. Lauren Townsend, executive director of Citizens for Consumer Justice, testified in favor of HB 1669. She urged legislators to include provisions forcing the telco's to improve their service response times. Townsend alleged this week that Verizon urges employees to intentionally ignore or respond sluggishly to service calls in order to cut costs. Townsend apparently promised proof of such internal activity after a Verizon spokesman called such claims "ridiculous." Rep. Joe Preston, sponsor of HB 30, warned those in attendance that if he found testimony to be untrue, he would "not trust you again." One bill, backed by consumer groups, essentially includes a broadband bill of rights and directly holds telco's accountable for deployments and the funds they use to do so (though it does leave a sting in the telco pocketbook). The other, with oodles of lobbyist money on its side, provides additional incentives, lowers the bar to a degree, and mirrors in many ways the legislation passed in 1995. Care to wager which bill will be left standing at the end of the telco/consumer fist fight?
Related:- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
|
 | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| What I find funny I wonder how the wording of the deal read. Back in 1995-1996, was there even any evidence that there could be consumer level/affordable broadband access, let alone from telcos? I know DSL isn't a new technology, but for a state to expect 45Mbps symmetrical fiber service available for 20% of it's residential consumers (read cheap) by 1998 is re-duckulous. That's even a pipe dream for people living in NYC or Richardson, TX.
Funny thing is, I believe Ronald F. Weigel when he said it is available. If a resident is willing to pony up 20-30K a month, it's all theirs!
--
] ::my trivial ramblings:: [ | |
|  | DSLrgm
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
Oak Park, MI | Re: What I find funny Work on xDSL was occuring even then. It is 54Mb (OC1). It can even go over copper if the copper is only 1000'. | |
| | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What I find funny So at 1000' for 54Mbps, it would take how much money to provide this solution for 50% of the population? How much of the pop. can be served by ADSL at 15,000 feet for 384k service?
And, how much was fiber and its related equipment back then? Then to provide this service to residents at a residentially affordable rate?
Like I said, I wonder what the wording really was...
--
] ::my trivial ramblings:: [ | |
| | | | 
Sisqo
World Champs. Babe Who?
Premium
join:2002-08-14
Methuen, MA
| Re: What I find funny I agree with you, I believe it was Bruce Gordon one of the exec's from Verizon that said, when the agreement was done with PA, it was the simple fact of having their systems ready for those speeds & their response to that was the customer can have it if they want it! Like you, I wonder what the wording was. | |
| | pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX
| said by DaSneaky1D  :
I wonder how the wording of the deal read. Back in 1995-1996, was there even any evidence that there could be consumer level/affordable broadband access, let alone from telcos? I know DSL isn't a new technology, but for a state to expect 45Mbps symmetrical fiber service available for 20% of it's residential consumers (read cheap) by 1998 is re-duckulous. That's even a pipe dream for people living in NYC or Richardson, TX.
Wouldn't that be the reason for the financial incentives? Essentially, the State of Pennsylvania agreed to pick up a big chunk of the tab, so that the service would be available at consumer prices.
It would appear that Verizon took the money but never delivered the goods.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@smsysinc.com
Secure Mobile Systems, Inc.
www.smsysinc.com | |
| | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What I find funny Then, where would the money be to buy the equipment, install the equipment, run the lines, buy right-of-way for land, pay for more employees to offer customer service, ect?
While 2.1 billion is a lot of money, when it comes to offering this service to 50% of the residents, it starts to get a little thin. I seriously doubt any of that money was supposed by Bell to be used as subsidation.
--
] ::my trivial ramblings:: [ | |
| | | | 
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| Re: What I find funny said by DaSneaky1D :
While 2.1 billion is a lot of money, when it comes to offering this service to 50% of the residents, it starts to get a little thin. I seriously doubt any of that money was supposed by Bell to be used as subsidation.
I'm sorry, but who cares if it turned out to be enough money or not? They are the ones who made the damn deal. They promised to do something in exchange for an assload of public money. They did not do it. It sounds to me like the agreement said they would have it deployed, not that they could drag a line if somebody coughed up 10K to do it. How would they need public money to do that. Every teleco that wants to do business MUST be able to that. Can they with a straight face tell us that a deal was made for them to just continue doing business, and Penn would pay them 2.1B just to do that.
When I make deals with the promise to do something in exchange for money and I don't do do it, they seem to call it "breach of contract". Nobody seems to care when I give excuses about it costing to much to follow through, not having enough time, or whatever else I want to blather on about. I made the deal, I agreed to the terms, I'm liable to return the money if I can't fulfill. No matter what drug I was smoking when I thought I could do it.
Why should they be any different? | |
| | | | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What I find funny Your right and I completely agree with you. But going from my first post about this, I wander what the wording of the contract is/was. If they built a fiber network with customer deliverable loops available to 50% of the residential population by 1998, though it would cost the resident $20,000 a month to lease a line for it, then they fulfilled their contract.
If the wording in the contract said that, "and everyday working, residential customers must be able to purchase this service for under $100 bucks a month", then they did breach their contract. But according to the wording of that Verizon Rep, he obviously made his comment out of a loop-hole in the contract. Seems to me like they did deliver.
--
] ::my trivial ramblings:: [ | |
| | | | | | 
royhandy
Oderint dum metuant
join:2000-05-23
Dar al Harb
clubs:
| Re: What I find funny I am SOOOOO tempted to call Verizon to find out how much 45MB/s up/down to my home would cost.
I would like to read the wording on the original deal, too.
--
My punctuality is well known/ When the revolution takes place/ I'll be late/And I'll be shot as a traitor | |
| | | | | | |
Sisqo
World Champs. Babe Who?
Premium
join:2002-08-14
Methuen, MA | Re: What I find funny LOL, dude do it I sooo curious to know. lol  | |
| | 
EnzonE
join:2000-03-23
Indiana, PA | Yeah it figures out of all the states I had to live in this one. We'll see how this all plays out, probably not in my favor either.
--
Verizon 768k/128k @ 16,200 feet from CO.Activated June 13 2001 | |
| | | | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What I find funny I actually found the answer with that link. So they were suppose to offer it at reasonable residential rates. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks for looking it up!
--
] ::my trivial ramblings:: [ | |
| | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
edited
| Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure So claimed the telco shills.
said by article:
It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years wound up clocking in at somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars.
Out of the 2.1 billion dollars received in the deal, $1.5 billion of it consisted of extra tax deductions.
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
If telcos don't want gov't and consumers having a say or don't intend to live up to their end of the deal shouldn't be taking the billions in taxpayer money. And when they fail or refuse to deploy technology in a manner previously agreed to they shouldn't be let off the hook but rather be ordered to return the taxpayer's money.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 14:34:35] | |
| | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure said by oliphant5 :
So claimed the telco shills.
said by article:
It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years wound up clocking in at somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars.
Out of the 2.1 billion dollars received in the deal, $1.5 billion of it consisted of extra tax deductions.
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
Wow, do I have to disagree with that! A tax break equals taxpayer funding? That sounds like you believe all money belongs to the government and they let us take back only our 'fair portion'. | |
| | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
edited
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure No, a tax break to a single company or industry is taxpayer funding. If EVERYONE were to be able to get the "break" as I said clearly before (with the mortgage interest example) then I would agree with you. But when it's gov't negotiating with a particular company, bartering tax money in exchange for something, then it's taxpayer funded...especially when the gov't isn't owning what it's paying for.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 15:32:56] | |
| | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure said by oliphant5 :
No, a tax break to a single company or industry is taxpayer funding. If EVERYONE were to be able to get the "break" as I said clearly before (with the mortgage interest example) then I would agree with you. But when it's gov't negotiating with a particular company, bartering tax money in exchange for something, then it's taxpayer funded...especially when the gov't isn't owning what it's paying for.
Sorry, I still can't go there with you. If only one company was getting some kind of break then the argument solidifies a little but when an entire industry is qualifying, it's just another tax break. Since there's a couple of million lines of tax code it blends in. Even then, when the government neglects to collect taxes, that just doesn't equal a government payout. | |
| | | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure This isn't the gov't neglecting to cut taxes. This is an agreement that the gov't would pay billions to a particular company in exchange for minimum deployment numbers.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports | |
| | | Teletruth
join:2001-12-25
New York, NY
| The situation is alot more pathetic than just the $2.1 billion dollars collected. That money came directly from rate payers in the form of higher profits on phone charges -- the money supposed to be used for new construction.
But there are two other things that are really annoying. First, Verizon and the other Bell companies from 1993-1995 took a total of $21 billion dollar dollars in taxe write-offs of the older copper networks, stating that they were replacing them-- which didn't happen.
New Networks has an active IRS case on this topic because according to a tax you can't tell the IRS that you are depreciating/writing off the equipment and still use it as nothing has happened.
In PA alone, the tax was over almost $1 billion dollars in Tax write-offs.
Secondly, Verizon funded the deployment of DSL, and the company got at leat $60 million dollars from customers in the form of higher rates --- it was a clear bait-and-switch -- Tell them you're giving them fiber, then use the money for the old copper networks. This of course is anti-competitive, since it cross-subsidizes an "interstate, Information service", that should not be funded by local phone rates.
Anyone interested in this topic should know this same scam happened throughout the US. We filed a complaint in MA over the failed deployment in that state (they were supposed to start rewiring various parts of Boston -- 330,000 lines by 1995. »newnetworks.com/Masscomplaintsummary.html
And in New Jersey, the Ratepayer Advocate wrote a scathing review of the same scam ----
»www.rpa.state.nj.us/onj.htm
California, Texas, All of the Ameritech states, including Ohio, Il, Indiana, Michigan had similar promised fiber deployments, though each state is different. Ohio was supposed to have wired all the schools.
A report published "How the Bell Stole America's Digital Future", published by NetAction, 2000, gives some of the details.
»www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/
Finally, we would like to point out the FCC's broadband reports never included any of the state information, including PA, NJ, etc, even though we've been filing and supplying data on this (and reports by other sources) since 1998.
Therefore, the Triennial Review's decision to block competitors from using Bell broadband networks ignores the fact that monies were collected in the majority of states. It is a 'customer' takings because monies have been collected from customers for new networks, and they should therefore, not be given to some private company for their own use.
Bruce Kushnick, Teletruth | |
| | | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure quote:
New Networks has an active IRS case on this topic because according to a tax you can't tell the IRS that you are depreciating/writing off the equipment and still use it as nothing has happened.
Where did you get this idea? Businesses write off depreciation of assets all the time while the assets are still in use. Vehicles are a perfect example of this. You don't depreciate the entire asset at once, but over a period of years- little by little. This is one reason why your lawsuit has failed.
Another reason is the simple fact that the agreement by Bell Atlantic wasn't to offer broadband internet service at 45 Mbps- but rather to be prepared to offer a fiber optic based network that would support 45 Mbps in both directions for the purpose of carrying video services. It is only you that has perverted this into saying that Verizon should be offering 45 Mbps/45 Mbps internet access for dirt cheap to every residence in PA.
The more you grasp at straws, the more desperate you sound and the less people take you seriously. It's no wonder that you are living in hotel rooms off of credit cards- no one wants to hire you- you're damaged goods.
Boogie | |
| | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Teletruth :
The situation is alot more pathetic than just the $2.1 billion dollars collected. That money came directly from rate payers in the form of higher profits on phone charges -- the money supposed to be used for new construction.
Originally, I was trying to make the point that a tax credit (cut, break, etc.) is NOT the same as taxpayer funding. I believe the less taxes collected, the better, regardless of why (or almost regardless, anyway). I wouldn't deny that some of the Verizon deal seems shady but I have to ask about the above statement, why are profits from phone charges supposed to be used for new construction? Can't the phone company do whatever they feel like with profits? | |
| | | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
edited
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure I agree with you up until the point in which only certain companies get the tax payoffs. If it were industry wide where all industry businesses had a crack at those breaks then I'd agree with you.
If the government subsidizes a single telecom company with a multibillion dollar payoff...that's funding.
And remember...that's not the governments money...that's the taxpayer's money. Did BellSouth pay $2 billion in state corporate taxes that year? Based on the amount of profit required to generate a state corporate tax bill of $2 billion I would guess no. Thus it came from Joe Taxpayer...that's his money the government is spending and they should get it back.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 10:26:20] | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure said by royhandy :
I believe that PA allowed Verizon to collect higher charges on phone services in exchange for Verizon building out a 45MB/s network.
That's how all phone charges that are not explicitly taxes work. Things like the USF, the "I'm too cheap to pay for phone service" fund, and all that other crap just lines the pockets of the telegraph company. Things like the USF were put into place so that the telegraph companies would wire rural areas for POTS. But because most areas of the country are wired up for POTS, this extra charge is just extra lining for the telegraph companies' profits.
This isn't really a "tax" or a subsidy in the traditional sense because the recipient of the funds is the telegraph company, not the government, even though it was the government that mandated the charge to begin with.
--
Jewel got Britney-fied! There is hope for the world yet! | |
| | | | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by royhandy :
I believe that PA allowed Verizon to collect higher charges on phone services in exchange for Verizon building out a 45MB/s network.
Then PA told Verizon 'nevermind'. Shows what happens when you trust government to solve problems. How many PA government officials got voted out of office over that? Zero? | |
| | | | | | |
royhandy
Oderint dum metuant
join:2000-05-23
Dar al Harb
clubs:
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure said by footballdude :
Then PA told Verizon 'nevermind'. Shows what happens when you trust government to solve problems. How many PA government officials got voted out of office over that? Zero?
I would definitely hazard a guess that 'zero' is the correct answer to your question. In fact, I had not even heard of this deal until the DSLreports article of a month or so ago. Neither had any of my coworkers. I would bet that, other than industry insiders and workers, very few of PA's residents heard much, if anything, about this deal.
--
My punctuality is well known/ When the revolution takes place/ I'll be late/And I'll be shot as a traitor | |
| | | | | | | | 
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure I've lived in PA for 10 years and am pretty much a "News Junkie". But, the first time I ever heard about this was recently, on another thread here on BBR.
And I've participated in many threads on other sites and on Usenet over the years discussing the high phone rates and other Telco related issues in this State. Not once has this Verizon deal ever been mentioned in any of those forums.
As compared to other areas I've lived in (DC, MD, CA, FL), the PA PUC seems "easy pickins" for the Telco's (and other companies) they are supposed to regulate, and our high Tariff's reflect that.
I bet Investigative Reporters and shows like "60 Minutes" could have a field day here in PA ! The PA PUC would be a good place to start! In fact, I'm gonna start suggesting just that.
| |
| | | |
EnzonE
join:2000-03-23
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
edited
| Teletruth, Thanks for the extra bit of information, maybe if we get enough people to support the house bill backed by you guys there will be success. All the power to you!
--
Verizon 768k/128k @ 16,200 feet from CO.
Activated June 13 2001
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 12:02:25] | |
| |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
So would you then say that since people that have children get a tax credit (whereas those without children DON'T get a tax credit), those that don't have children are PAYING for other people to have kids?
If you equate a tax break with taxpayers funding those getting the tax break, then you are saying that if you don't have kids, you are paying child support to those that do. If you don't own a house, you are paying money to those that DO own a house.
Boogie | |
| | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
edited
| Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure No because anyone with a child who paid taxes get's the credit.
Giving a tax break to only Joe Smith on 123 Main St is subsidizing as is when the state makes a deal and gives a single company like BellAtlantic billions to deploy.
Now if you were to have a sweeping Federal tax law stating that ANYONE deploying telecom technology can apply for the same money...that's a tax break.
And again (since I guess you didn't read the thread) mortgage interest isn't a subsidy since ANYONE paying mortgage interest can take a deduction under the guidelines of the law. With this telco crap, your name had to be BellAtlantic to get the taxpayer money.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 23:51:20] | |
| | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by boogie74 :
quote:
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
So would you then say that since people that have children get a tax credit (whereas those without children DON'T get a tax credit), those that don't have children are PAYING for other people to have kids?
If you equate a tax break with taxpayers funding those getting the tax break, then you are saying that if you don't have kids, you are paying child support to those that do. If you don't own a house, you are paying money to those that DO own a house. Boogie
Regardless of how you characterize it, the fact remains that a deal was struck, money was paid, BA and later, Verizon took the money, but did not provide the agreed-upon service. I call that fraud, theft, lying, and a number of other things that I can't print here on this board...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure Yep, it's crap and Verizon should be ordered to return the taxpayers' money. | |
| |
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| Pittsburgh (just north of my town) is experiencing a $60 million budget shortfall and is (among other reductions) laying off city workers, closing a police Zone station, and cutting back of badly needed services.
Part of this mess is due to a reduction in State funding - the $$ just aren't there (or so they say). Yet our PA State PUC lets Verizon off the hook with what amounts to $1.5 billion of extra tax deductions for agreed upon investment in infrastructure that was never done.
And Verizon is only one of the companies who have gotten large tax deductions at the local level and state level, and have failed to keep their end of the bargain or failed to meet fallacious expectations which our gullible legislators accepted as "reasonable".
Ahhhhh.........I got it! Since our State helped out Verizon to the tune of $1.5 billion, maybe the City of Pittsburgh could get a little help from Verizon to reduce the current budget shortfall! Yah, that's it!
| |
| | |
See 16 replies to this post | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| So What's New Heck the teleco are doing just what defense contractors have been doing for decades, acting like shake down artists
Whinning about needing ever increasing amounts of money.
--
Low Brass & Irish Terriers rule, I love for warm glow of a vacuum tube in the morning | |
| 
Motorhead5
join:2000-06-05
Woodside, NY
| Telcos have nerve "...Verizon of Pennsylvania President James O'Rourke says HB 1669 "jeopardizes the capital budgets of the very companies that are building advanced telecom networks."
This article started off with the revelation that the state of Pennsylvania forgave a 2.1 billion dollar advance and this jerkoff is complaining about capital investment??!!
This country desperately needs campaign finance reform to keep industry money out of politics. Witness the recent blackout and the complete lack of intelligence, planning, accountability or intestinal fortitude to deal with upgrading the system on the part of the energy industry. | |
| | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
·Insight Communicat..
| Re: Telcos have nerve quote:
This country desperately needs campaign finance reform to keep industry money out of politics. Witness the recent blackout and the complete lack of intelligence, planning, accountability or intestinal fortitude to deal with upgrading the system on the part of the energy industry.
I couldn't agree more. When we are talking about billions of dollars, I can't see how they have an excuse. Puh-leeese.
With regards to the blackout problem, what everyone keeps missing is the other end of the equation: conservation.
While politically unpopular as we get what we want in terms of consumption, it would be prudent to look at that side of things and maybe learn to cut back in some small way, any way. | |
| waynemr
join:2002-01-28
Madison, WI
| Pennsylvania is over a barrel This is kind of like sending the criminal father to prison, who was the only one making enough money to feed and clothe his eight kids. Put him in prison, and the State ends up paying more.
Unfortunately, with the economy in da schitz, Pennsylvania is over the barrel. If they whack the teleco, the teleco responds by cutting jobs in that state...
What they should do, is push for a long-term, structured settlement - push the terms out, so that when the economy is good, they can demand some kind of a refund from the teleco later on.
It sucks, but what else can they do. Well, I guess they could seize all of the assets of Verizon until they pay, lol! Call out the Pennsylvania National Guard!!! | |
| | | 
Ryno
The Wanderer
Premium
join:2001-04-07
Danielsville, PA | 20% bs I would bet that they can't even give 20% of Pennsylvania 1.5 mbps. Of course they would say something like they wired big cities and that adds up to way more. Problem is, most of the wealthier customers do not live in the cities any more. | |
| | | |
|
|
I Know!
·
·
·