 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | We know... Although it sucks for them, we all know they have issues up there.
Nothing new (or news should I say) | |
|
 | 
hawk82
join:2001-04-26
Oakland, ME
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: We know... very true. verizon didn't care an awful lot before and they still don't now. i dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing (verizon's sale of this area). i'll wait and see.
--
Computer & Network Consultant
Yes, I use pico... laugh all you want.... | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Verizon shouldn't get off for free Remember, Verizon put in the lines when they were subsidized by guaranteed rates. That was a social contract with the citizens to provide universal coverage, for ALL citizens of the state, not just the 'profitable' ones. It looks like Verizon is once again trying to screw the 'people' in exchange for higher profits, notwithstanding the fact that the 'people' paid for the entire infrastructure in the past.
I say, force verizon to upgrade everywhere. Verizon made money in the past by screwing the people, it's high time the people get the benefits of that | |
|
| |
| | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free you're an industry shill. who do you work for Verizon? | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free The fact is, Verizon is cherry picking like other ISP. Which is not good for the "people".. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Verizon, doesn't have the RIGHT to sell those lines. You see, Verizon didn't pay for those lines, the PEOPLE paid for the lines. That's not a hard concept to understand now. The issue is that verizon doesn't feel like servicing the people who paid for the infrastructure over the last 75 years. Verizon would be worthless if it didn't make all the money it made (while part of bell). The lines, and the PEOPLE who paid for the lines, are a national resouce. Verizon should be held responsible for maintaing, and yes, upgrading if necessary. This concept of 'dumping' the unprofitable area's is a travesty, one that the megacorps of amerika continually try and foist off on the unsuspecting public. It's time for the FCC to show some balls, and force verizon to do what's best for the country, Screw the shareholders, they've made their money back a hundred times over already. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free said by karlmarx  :Verizon, doesn't have the RIGHT to sell those lines. Riiiight. A private (ie. NON governmental organization) doesnt have the "right" to sell its assets. Thats a good one.
said by karlmarx :Verizon should be held responsible for maintaing, and yes, upgrading if necessary. Verizon is responsible for maintaining all the assets it owns. If they cease to own them, they are no longer responsible for them. Furthermore, Verizon is not required to "upgrade" anything. As a private company they can chose if they wish to spend millions of dollars on an area that will never allow them to recoup the investment. I know its a very tough concept, so try and follow along!
said by karlmarx :This concept of 'dumping' the unprofitable area's is a travesty, one that the megacorps of amerika continually try and foist off on the unsuspecting public. It's time for the FCC to show some balls, and force verizon to do what's best for the country.... Hmmm, I dont even know where to start with this one. If you think the idea of a company having the right to sell any part of its assets is a travesty, then you honestly have a lot more to worry about in life. As for the FCC forcing Verizon to do "whats best for the country", THAT is a "travesty". The FCC has no authority to determine such things, and if it did we would all be in a lot of trouble.
--
я люблю медведей! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free wifi.... you are missing the entire point. Verizon is not like a normal private company because it uses subsidized money (public money) to build the infrastructer. Just because we gave verizon money to build something does not make it the owner of the lines. Operated by but not owned unless it bought the lines back from the people (government). The lines are not apart of Verizons Assets (unless purchased back) because they are for US. "Verizon was in the right position (part of the Bell family) to build the network for the American PUBLIC." | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free wifi4milez is a corporate shill.. he is very similar in his posts to tkjunkmail especially when it comes to defending verizon. at least tkjunkmail admits that he owns stock in telco's. any private citizen who defends verizon is an employee especially someone here because all their abuses of their customers are presented here. why else would this guy defend them like this? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Ok "karlmarx", Verizon has NO responsibility to these lines, and they're even trying to find someone to cover the servicing for them. You people and your "entitlement" are ridiculous. I live near, and drive through the areas all the time. There are barely exits on the highways, forget people. Half the land are just named "township 91". If I were a shareholder of Verizon I would extremely pissed off if they were spending money developing this network for, essentially, the trees. The people who moved to those areas moved there BECAUSE there aren't other people, it's the lifestyle they were looking for. They are prime candidates for dial-up or satellite service. There aren't even radio stations in some of these places.. jees.
Verizon is essentially selling the servicing rights to this area. They can do this because there is a tiny profit to be made by providing the service. There has to be a profit because that's what incentizes free peoples to provide services for others. Service without profit is serfdom at best, and slavery at worst. Verizon is NOT making a HUGE profit off this area of the country.
And wifi may be a corporate apologist, but he's certainly NOT a shill. Just like you're a Supra-Socialist, but probably not a communist. | |
|
| | | 
GlennAllen
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | Just capitalism at work. | |
|
| | | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Broadband is not a utility so under no circumstances nobody has the right to push them to provide broadband to Maine since no business will do anything in a unprofitable area. It's not being a corporate shill it's simply a study of economics.
What the people of Main must do is find a solution to there troubles and Verizon should have no say on it either. If they want to block competition that's another matter and anyone who does agree that Verizon should be allowed to block someone else from starting is in reality a corporate shill imho. | |
|
| | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free With triple play, and in VZ case, quad play, the excuse for not services an area for economic reasons is getting harder to justify. | |
|
| 
Rickez
Goinginsane
join:2000-09-02
Three Rivers, MA | It looks like Verizon is once again trying to screw the 'people' in exchange for higher profits,
Agreed.
--
Got a one way ticket, going the wrong way.... | |
|
| | 
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs: | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Its not the job of any US company to look out for the people..
The people have to look out for the people.
--
It's all part of my rock and roll fantasy | |
|
| | | daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Agreed.
It's not Verizon's responsibility to ensure that every person in New England has access to a Broadband connection. That's the government's job. If the state of Vermont wants to mandate that every one in Vermont has access to a high speed connection, then the state of Vermont should fund it.
Asking a private company to take huges losses isn't going to happen. | |
|
| | | | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free said by daslog :Asking a private company to take huges losses isn't going to happen. If Verizon is a private company why do they need some many handouts ? ie Pennsylvania, NJ etc.I wonder if these people have cable because there probably "franchised" into service.
--
the darkest moment is often just before dawn (unless we hold onto the darkness). Anxiety spoils everything and solves nothing. | |
|
| | | | | daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free I too, was shocked to learn that private companies will accept handouts from the government... | |
|
| | | | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | I think we all understand that companies do what they want with what they have. But the lines that are to be sold are not theres to sell.PERIOD | |
|
| | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | "That's the government's job." No it ain't. | |
|
| | | | | daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free So it's a private company's duty to take losses on unprofitable customers? | |
|
| | | | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free As a poster above notes, those lines have been subsidized and paid for by taxpayers ten times over, so the violin playing as far as "losses" are concerned is a little much.... | |
|
| | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| That's not what I was trying to say, why do you even think the government should always get involved? If Verizon does not want to service that area they don't have too, but to go and cry wolf to the government so you can have your little luxury to me is considered bullshit.
Why does the government always have to bend over simply because people want what other's have. Verizon has every right as a business choose where they want to do business. If a state does not enforce Verizon into some contract that in order for them to business in say this particular state they must provide every customer with broadband and don't agree then that's it.
But then people cry and complain because they choose to make no sacrifice and end up giving in just like everyone else does, Verizon is getting money either way and the one who is suffering is actually you.
It's like those type of things where everyone all the sudden had this idea that they wanted to do but in the end nobody put enough effort into it and it just died?
Well these are just one of those situations in my opinion. I am not defending Verizon or the state of Maine or any other state for that matter.
It's like saying if macdonalds comes to town they must be on every on every corner for each 10 blocks. Verizon and like any other corporation out there it looks for profits, not losses which is why those who live in the boonies will have to simply wait it out or find a alternative means like satellite. If you want options why don't you make it?
People complain about lack of competition but I never see anyone else starting up a mom and pop business to give the fix to that need/demand. If you want change you need to get your ass out there and do something, not complain about it. | |
|
| | | | | | | daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Typically, when the Free market fails, you need to get the government involved to correct it. In this example, everyone agrees that Broadband for Rural customers would be a good thing, but it's simply not profitable for a private business to provide the service. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Re: Verizon shouldn't get off for free Free market I agree has holes and that government intervention is necessary in some cases but this is not one of them. If Verizon refuses to service that area the state should be auctioning itself to have other companies come and to help out. Send out letters to major telco's or internet providers who might be willing to give them the service they want.
There are many ways to deal with this issue but I don't see anyone coming up and saying "I got an idea" and they just run to the government for help as if they would know jack about what should be provided. Utilities should be econtrolled but luxuries should not be. I know this sounds mean and as an insult in a way to people who live far away but that's how it is.
What you want the government to do? Give our vouchers or cash so people can pay for there little satellite connections?
Sooner or later we are going to have taxes for cable tv and hbo...yeah that's the solution, make everyone else pay for your shit, I like the idea of how you freeload off other people's tax dollars when that money could of been put to MUCH better use.
Just like those bastards who ride in a freaking brand spanking new with plastic tag on the back Cadillac. Then go to social security demanding there money, just like these people would demand for there vouchers for hardware payments to there satellite internet.
That's the government solution, and it's a shitty solution, if you can prove to me that they won't use our tax dollars and actually force the state of maine to pay for it's own luxuries by charging the citizens of maine for it.
If you got problems in Maine keep it Maine, same goes for any other state in my opinion. Unless disaster struck in any state where federal help would be needed, then yeah that's understandable because all states are like families that make this nation so great, but best bet you won't like having your son coming asking you for cash all the time. He better work for it. | |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Hopefully they'll sell it to some adventurous telco(s) Hopefully they'll sell to some adventurous telco(s), such as the small ones that have already had fiber laid to homes in their areas with higher capacity than even Verizon FiOS currently has, and who will have aggressive fiber plans for those areas. | |
|
| jesseb_66
join:2002-12-06
Tucson, AZ | Re: Hopefully they'll sell it to some adventurous telco(s) My parents house in VT can get Adelphia, i think (Comcast) now. No DSL though. My dads business in NH can't get DSL or even cable... | |
|
Guest77
@64.69.x.x
| is this even accurate? Is this story even accurate? I have relatives who live in a small town in NH on a dirt road, literally miles to the nearest pavement. The utility poles go through dense forest. I was very surprised when I visited they have cable internet. I wish i could remember the company I dont think it was Comcast. | |
|
| |
DoctorDoom
Troll hunter
Premium
join:2006-09-19
Becket, MA
| It's the nature of the beast It is absurd to ask any company to engage in unprofitable ventures. Areas such as mine (in MA and "underserved") do not justify the millions of dollars to provide DSL or cable when the customer base wouldn't even recoup their expenses, let alone turn a profit.
Would I like DSL, cable or (hahahahaha) FIOS? Absolutely. Will they be available in this century? Not a chance. I choose to live where my nearest neighbor is several hundred feet away, and I'm surrounded by trees rather than concrete walls. I must therefore accept the negatives. HughesNet was and is the only option for me, and thusfar I'm more than satisfied with it. | |
|
|
|
|
New England's Broadband Black Holes
