Press 'Asleep At The Wheel' On AstroturfAllowing baby bells a greased track for 'franchise reform' ( old news - 09:05AM Tuesday May 08 2007) tags: business · Op/Ed · telco · Politics · consumersTipped by jslik  Nobody in the press seems to care that the baby bells are using consumer groups (often fake ones) to manipulate the public as part of their recent push for video "franchise reform". Consumer advocates (real ones) note the reform bills making their way through dozens of states will eliminate public access TV, legalize cherry picking resulting in less broadband penetration, erode local eminent domain rights, and strip away consumer protections -- which will lead to higher prices. Yet the vast majority of the news coverage of these laws is bubbly editorial regurgitation of incumbent lobbyist talking points; promises of low prices and competition fed to consumers via a vast network of bell-funded organizations. In a piece for the Harvard University Nieman Watchdog, Telecom consumer activist Bruce Kushnick laments the fact that nobody in the technology sector seems particularly concerned about any of this (there are, after all, iPhone stories to write). "You would think it would be embarrassing for the press and media to quote astroturf and co-opted groups as authentic but most press simply are asleep at the wheel. In many cases, as with the Newark Star Ledger, op-ed pages run pieces by astroturf or co-opted groups while news coverage seldom questions why various non-profits have come forward to support a corporate position." He points to similar Gordon Cook concerns from last summer. Also see the older Common Cause report on astroturf organizations and their impact on public telecom-related discourse. Related:- Telcos, Microsoft Wage Stealth War on Google
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
|
 mrgrock1
join:2003-06-05 Port Charlotte, FL | Media Sounds like the standard "non" biased media to me. Benefits those that are in the know and keep everyone else informed with spin. | |
|  |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Re: How about because no one cares True, Bruce is definitely one with an 'agenda' (one that I find not-without-foundation) but your comment is outside the point. Traditional media is indeed falling apart. There just doesn't seem to be any actual research, much less investigation, of sources.
I guess it comes down to how these articles are written-up. Is there any disclosure that the sources are funded by the interested parties? If not, absolutely inexcusable. If that's the case, the media are simply whores for passing on thinly-guised advertising.
If they are putting out the arguments, balancing them with opposing viewpoints, and disclosing the funding and organization, then there's certainly no problem with reporting those stories.
It's not about including stories people are interested in but doing so in a clear, balanced, and responsible manner. KM -- Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
|  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: How about because no one cares said by KoolMoe :Traditional media is indeed falling apart. There just doesn't seem to be any actual research, much less investigation, of sources. I guess it comes down to how these articles are written-up. Is there any disclosure that the sources are funded by the interested parties? If not, absolutely inexcusable. If that's the case, the media are simply whores for passing on thinly-guised advertising. It's not about including stories people are interested in but doing so in a clear, balanced, and responsible manner. KM The press has almost never done what you claim they should do. From the earliest days of "yellow journalism", the press has always been nothing but a platform for advertisers and political parties. When they report the "truth", it is merely an accident. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |   John Galt Premium join:2004-09-30 Oceanside, OR
| Re: How about because no one cares said by TK Junk Mail :The press has almost never done what you claim they should do. From the earliest days of "yellow journalism", the press has always been nothing but a platform for advertisers and political parties. When they report the "truth", it is merely an accident. This is an interesting program that examines the issue:
»www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/
It has some "political" context but I would suspect that there is enough blame to go around regardless of party...
Four hours, but it delves quite deeply into the reasons for the current situation. -- A is A | |
|  |  |  |   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by TK Junk Mail :The press has almost never done what you claim they should do. From the earliest days of "yellow journalism", the press has always been nothing but a platform for advertisers and political parties. When they report the "truth", it is merely an accident. There's a difference between reporting with an agenda and not bothering to do basic research. That is, if you're going to quote a source, for whatever reason, one should at least do a basic check on the veracity of the source's information (lest you end up with an embarrassing factual error that gives your news organization a black eye). -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|  |  |   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by KoolMoe :True, Bruce is definitely one with an 'agenda' (one that I find not-without-foundation) but your comment is outside the point. Traditional media is indeed falling apart. There just doesn't seem to be any actual research, much less investigation, of sources. So, what's Dan Rather doing these days? -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09 Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| said by nixen :So, what's Dan Rather doing these days? Coincidentally, I just got an 'adazine' in the mail today from Time Warner which highlights his new program on some new cable network that they want me to pay to watch. I wonder if he'll be on U-Verse, too. | |
|  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: How about because no one cares said by T1 Rocky : And where is the fiber network the telcos promised the government would be built before 2004 back in 1996? They built it. They never promised FTTH. They promised a fiber backbone and we got it. Hence the glut in fiber until just the last year or so. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: How about because no one cares Incorrect. The promise made to states like PA was for last mile, 45Mbps fiber connectivity. I have the original order around here somewhere in pdf. Yes, that's ludicrous, but yes, they still got tax write-offs and other incentives essentially for free. | |
|  |  |  |  |  SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: How about because no one cares said by Karl Bode :Incorrect. The promise made to states like PA was for last mile, 45Mbps fiber connectivity. I have the original order around here somewhere in pdf. Yes, that's ludicrous, but yes, they still got tax write-offs and other incentives essentially for free. Wait, what do you have? Do you have a promise from Verizon to the states? to their customers?
Or is this "promise" actually an order issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PUC? | |
|  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by TK Junk Mail :Bruce Kushnick cares because he has had it in for big telco for years and has based his whole business(teletruth.org) Thing is, he's right.
It's all in the spin. When it's reported as "New reform plan will deliver more services, lower prices" it's no wonder it's embraced.... but if the exact same thing was labeled "Major Communications players want to take away your rights, eliminate competition" then people would rail against it.
Sheeple.
The presentation these days seems to be more important then the facts. Unfortunately only the first method seems to be common today in the major media. It's left to certain internet sites to try and balance out the story with some of the latter... -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|   Pathfinder Dazed Confused Premium join:2000-03-26 Mount Vernon, NY | Yawn ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. | |
|  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | I wonder why this idiot doesn't have any concern about the cable companies doing the same thing. I wonder who runs keepitlocaltennessee.com? Oh wait I know.
"Keep It Local Tennessee is a product of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association" | |
|  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I wonder why said by BF69 :this idiot doesn't have any concern about the cable companies doing the same thing. I wonder who runs keepitlocaltennessee.com? Oh wait I know. "Keep It Local Tennessee is a product of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association" They would have to be really asleep at the wheel to think any of the *CTA groups was a community non-profit organization. It tends to be pretty clear that they are industry based lobbying associations. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | Re: I wonder why Right, the mainstream media aren't asleep at the wheel - they're driving the getaway car.
I have no doubt many of the same people own the companies that are astroturfing and the companies that are presenting propaganda as news. | |
|  |  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I wonder why said by knightmb :said by BF69 :this idiot doesn't have any concern about the cable companies doing the same thing. I wonder who runs keepitlocaltennessee.com? Oh wait I know. "Keep It Local Tennessee is a product of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association" Exactly, I'm tired of seeing those same commercials. Here is the owner of that "grass roots" domain. Registrant: National Cable & Telecommunications Association 1724 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036 United States That's my point... they don't present themselves as a grassroots organization at all. The first line you see on google is: "Trade organization of cable operators in the state." And then there is a Lobbyist Association's Ethics Legislative Summary on the front page. It would be nice if there was a line that said "This is state association of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association" too, but the about page is pretty clear that it is not a grassroots organization. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: I wonder why said by marigolds :said by knightmb :said by BF69 :this idiot doesn't have any concern about the cable companies doing the same thing. I wonder who runs keepitlocaltennessee.com? Oh wait I know. "Keep It Local Tennessee is a product of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association" Exactly, I'm tired of seeing those same commercials. Here is the owner of that "grass roots" domain. Registrant: National Cable & Telecommunications Association 1724 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036 United States That's my point... they don't present themselves as a grassroots organization at all. The first line you see on google is: "Trade organization of cable operators in the state." And then there is a Lobbyist Association's Ethics Legislative Summary on the front page. It would be nice if there was a line that said "This is state association of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association" too, but the about page is pretty clear that it is not a grassroots organization. Yes the ABOUT page which the link is VERY small and at the bottom of the page which 99.9% of people don't look. Also the commericals do NOT make it clear that they are part of the cable industry. In fact they take every effort to look grassroots-like.
Well at least they are somewhat honest
"Myth Cable prices will be drastically reduced once BellSouth/AT&T, etc. enters the market." | |
|  |  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I wonder why said by BF69 :Yes the ABOUT page which the link is VERY small and at the bottom of the page which 99.9% of people don't look. Also the commericals do NOT make it clear that they are part of the cable industry. In fact they take every effort to look grassroots-like. Having a small "About" link is nothing compared to the obfuscation behind Consumers for cable choice, TV4US, Rossmoor Computer Club, or Consumers for Tech Choice. Try to find anything even close to indicating that these organizations are industry lobbying representatives. TV4US is the only one that comes even slightly close to indicating that it is industry organization and not a citizen organization. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  rileyjam514 There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26 Kearny, NJ
| Star-Ledger I'm not sure anyone here has actually read the bastard, three-legged, inbred cousin of the NY Times that is the Newark Star-Ledger, but frankly I'm not surprised that they've essentially thrown journalistic integrity out the window in favor of having some op-ed space filled.
I mean, look at what they strive towards: the Old Grey Lady (who should've been put in a home long ago). -- Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! | |
|  |   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Star-Ledger said by rileyjam514 :I'm not sure anyone here has actually read the bastard, three-legged, inbred cousin of the NY Times that is the Newark Star-Ledger, but frankly I'm not surprised that they've essentially thrown journalistic integrity out the window in favor of having some op-ed space filled. I mean, look at what they strive towards: the Old Grey Lady (who should've been put in a home long ago). Yeah, but it's a fitting paper for Newark. What can you expect of a rag coming out of that sh!thole? -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|  |  |   DownTheShore Doing A Happy Dance Premium join:2003-12-02 Edison, NJ clubs:
| Re: Star-Ledger The sad part about that is that it has enough name recognition within the state to be a substantial force, if the people running it ever remember what investigative journalism actually is.
Unfortunately, it seems as though journalists/reporters have forgotten that it's their duty to look behind the surface of a story, to identify the major players and to shine a light on all the little creepy, crawly things in the background. There is too much reliance on people with apparent poor research skills, too much happy-face reporting, too much superficiality, too many personal agendas being pushed.
There was a time within living memory when pride was taken in getting to the truth of the matter, but now when the bottom-line competes with journalistic integrity, integrity always seems to lose.  -- Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
|  |   xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24 Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| waste of breath here. Everytime anyone brings up atrocities from the telco's on this board, all I hear is "I don't care if you build a power plant in my front yard easment and stomp on puppies, if it leads to faster world of warcraft then I will support it."
there will be no increased speeds from this (not accelerated by the franchise anyway), no prices will drop and if anything, with AT&T now in both the satellite and cable business, there will eventually be less competition. | |
|   tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09 Saint Clair Shores, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
edit: May 10th, @06:51AM
| So what? Remember, it's not a one way street. Let things change. They can always be changed back. Isn't that what we've seen with how the bells were broken up, now they are all back in the same bed? Guess it's gonna suck for those of you living is the back woods or towns off the path of big telco's offerings. As far as the press being asleep. Dude.. they have been down and out since the Nixon administration.. Where have you been? | |
|   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| What leads to higher prices? I'm always amused by consumer groups saying that not doing things their way will lead to higher prices.
Consider this situation--how exactly will forced service to areas which don't economically support build-out NOT lead to higher prices from the provider overall? I mean, somebody's got to pay for extending that fiber that will be underused?
In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas.
I can hardly wait 'till they begin advocating parking taxes on suburbs with wide streets and lots of parking to subsidize parking garage fees for those who live in areas where there are only "underserved parking needs"....
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
edit: May 8th, @12:38PM
| Re: What leads to higher prices? Well, you hit the nail completely on the head here.
The choices are between low priced services some and no service at all for many, higher priced services for many and no service for some, or high priced services for everyone and low priced services for a few.
Obviously the telcos prefer the first model and the cable companies are already in the last model. Consumer groups have preferred the middle model.
Which one an individual prefers probably depends on if you are part of the some, the few, or the many 
But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?" The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention.
-- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What leads to higher prices? said by marigolds :... But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?" The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention. [I think you meant to say that "paying for the fiber is NOT what makes television expensive."]
I'm not so sure that "intervention" is required to see cheaper programming, even if it would be permitted under the First Amendment. YouTube is certainly providing inexpensive programming.
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: What leads to higher prices? said by calvoiper :said by marigolds :... But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?" The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention. [I think you meant to say that "paying for the fiber is NOT what makes television expensive."] I'm not so sure that "intervention" is required to see cheaper programming, even if it would be permitted under the First Amendment. YouTube is certainly providing inexpensive programming. calvoiper Yep, I meant "not" 
YouTube provides some programming, but when it comes to the high demand programming that is driving tv costs: live content, sports, exclusive series, sports, full length recent release movies, and sports; YouTube is still lagging behind in content while pay internet sources are still not very cheap.
The intervention I talked about could come from government (and might have to), but it also could come from a sufficient industry shakeup. Likely paths would be: Restricting vertical integration of media ownership (telcos and cable companies owning channels) Forbid confidentially clauses on retransmission agreements (or even require public disclosure of retransmission agreements) Restricting or eliminating channel bundling Retransmission rate regulation, or similar regulation upstream (for example, using the anti-trust exemption for baseball to require salary caps and regulate tv contract negotiations)
I think the most important types of government intervention are those that make contract details public knowledge. This gives the best possibility of correcting the current market failures without introducing new government failures. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  viperlmw Premium join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Here's my question, regarding 'cherry picking' (btw, I love cherries, what's wrong with picking them?). How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? | |
|  |  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by calvoiper :In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas. Wealth redistribution ??? How do you get that ? Most of these groups are simply asking that broadband service be available in all areas. The telcos are going to do like they have always done too and charge everyone the same amount for the same service. -- Prove it... | |
|  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What leads to higher prices? It's wealth redistribution because it conveys a benefit (a second source of TV programming) to a population which the provider doesn't want to serve (allegedly) because it's too expensive to serve--the return on equity doesn't support the investment.
What a build-out requirement does is force additional expense on the provider--expense which is recovered from all ratepayers in the regulated area, thereby subsidizing the additional expense of "build-out" by charging more to the people who the company really wanted to build to in the first place.
There is no free lunch.
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: What leads to higher prices? said by calvoiper :It's wealth redistribution because it conveys a benefit (a second source of TV programming) to a population which the provider doesn't want to serve (allegedly) because it's too expensive to serve--the return on equity doesn't support the investment. That's not wealth distribution... Wealth redistribution implies that money is being transferred from one group of people to another without their consent. However, in the case of forcing providers to build out at a higher cost to all customers, ensuring that all people have access, the relationship is purely voluntary.
What a build-out requirement does is force additional expense on the provider--expense which is recovered from all ratepayers in the regulated area, thereby subsidizing the additional expense of "build-out" by charging more to the people who the company really wanted to build to in the first place. See, the problem with not having build out requirements is that providers would leave entire areas dark. If it had not been for build out requirements, most of the country would probably be without basic service like telephone and electricity and other services like cable and internet.
The problem here is that these companies are being given access to public access right of ways, so the states certainly should make sure that the use of those right of ways is maximized. -- Prove it... | |
|  |  |  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by bmn :said by calvoiper :In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas. Wealth redistribution ??? How do you get that ? Most of these groups are simply asking that broadband service be available in all areas. The telcos are going to do like they have always done too and charge everyone the same amount for the same service. Here's the thing, AT&T is not here NOW. The reason is because they want a statewide franchise. Now these pro-cable idiots think that somehow if they are denied that AT&T will come to their senses and still come here. WRONG. Instead of "cherry picking" certain wealthy communities in cities they'll just "cherry pick" the state and only build in cities that have the highest incomes. Meaning NOT MINE. At least if AT&T comes to my town even if it's just in the "rich" parts they are here and that means eventually they will branch out.
The cable companies know this and that way they get to keep their monopolies on the vast majority of their areas. Anyone that thinks the cable companies are against statewide franchising out of the concern for the consumer, they are delusional. | |
|   truedalife
join:2003-01-10 Brooklyn, MD
| Verizon still acting like Ma Bell. Verizon will never play fair. As I posted before here at BBR, Comcast actively negotiates over 120 franchise agreements per year. There is a department dedicated just for that. All that department does is review franchise agreements all year long, everyday. For over 20 years now, Comcast has continued to follow the rules in every State of this union, that it owns a cable system in.
Yes, Comcast lobbies every year for reform in the franchise process too! But do they ever get the congress support for real reform? No, they have never gotten any support from any congressmen in this matter. And never a reform bill being debated in any committee. Why?
State vs. local government. The local townships and local city government officials have been fighting the state governments for years, keeping them out of the local franchise process. Verizon keeps lobbing the states to pass statewide franchise agreements, which is wrong and bad for everyone. It takes away power from your local government. And all those community perks are gone, no matter how crazy they were. Those taxes that Comcast pays for each subscriber, a bigger share will now goto the state. Leaving your townships looking for revenues. It once took Baltimore City over 5 months to review and close an agreement with Comcast cable.
At what price do you want your FIOS people? On the blood, sweat and tears of the tax payers? Can't you see the bullshit? This is a corporate company directly influencing government policies that yes, do generates competition, but also directly allows Verizon to have an unfair advantage over the competition.
Do you see any other company out there in business land, with deep pockets (in the billions for a fiber to the home project) that could complete with with Verizon's FTTH? There really aren't any other companies out there that could just jump into the video business like Verizon just did. That means the franchise reform Verizon is fighting for, will only benefits one company. Them
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES, (someone out there in BBR land might say)? The advantages are a streamlined process in the application review (90 days), with less demands allowed by your local government. It's wrong to have a streamline process officiated by the state, because your local officials work hard to make sure that your CATV (community access television) provider contributes to your community. Weather they demand a new library or high franchise fee's in goes back to your community. Good luck getting your money back from the state controllers office.
This is the history of Verizon. When ever Ma Bell would get in trouble financially, they would go cry to Uncle Sam to bail them out. Then Ma Bell had her babies and Verizon gobbled everything on the East coast in the aftermath. But like daughter and mother, they both have the same cooperate genes. Just like there mommy, Verizon will suck that government welfare nipple. Tee! Tee!
Verizon ate up the East coast too fast, and with bad future financial forecast plans. They did not plan for competition from VOIP and cable broadband, that's why they back-lashed at VOIP provider Vonage. Go back to when Verizon was Bell Atlantic and there was once a company called NYNEX. Bell Atlantic planned shortly after the breakup, to buy back as many baby bell systems up the East coast. At the time there was only dial up and it was booming with surcharges for being on-line too long. Oh, the BBS days. I remember well. And those surcharges.
Thinking they could continue to receive around $50 each month from there customers, the CEO at the time started the process to buy back most of the baby bell properties up the East cost. Then the age of broadband exploded on to the scene, like the big bang that they say started the universe. No more two phone lines in a home, many went with @Home. Then VOIP came and many said "I already pay for broadband access to the internet cheaply, why not get my home phone service over the same broadband connection!" And for half the price than the newly named Verizon. A big bloated company with debt they had to ingest from many failing baby bells they ate up. With VOIP many canceled the Verizon phone service.
You can't predict that kind of forecast. You would have never guessed that VOIP and Cable companies would be taking there core business way if you asked them in the 1980's. You would have never guessed that other providers would be riding on Verizon's (Ma Bell's) government built lines. This is do or die for Verizon. Either die from an archaic system or rebuild with as much government welfare and red tape cutting as possible.
Mean while, Comcast, TWC, COX, Cablevision, Bright-house and many many more in your community continue to play fair by following the original franchise agreements. Play fair Verizon! Play fair!
Playing dirty is for losers. You wait and watch for the Verizon empire to fall. The average consumer doesn't care if his video rides to the house on yarn or fishing string. They just want a clear picture. And how fast is real fast? Comcast proved today that DOCSIS 3.0 can deliver blazing 100 Mbps. On regular cable wires. 50 Mbps both ways is good to me. Too much speed is going to bog up the internet infrastructure. | |
|  | |  |
|
|