 | |  Regulator stepping over the line
| |
|
 | | | Re: Regulator stepping over the line Ahh, yes, but ....
Regulators do not get right of way $$$ from satellite. | |
|
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Regulator stepping over the line Here, in the south S.F. Bay Area of California, they don't get a lot of "Right of way $$$" either; at least not directly. Those $$$ go to PG&E for space on their (PG&E's) poles.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|  bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| quote:
"For new customers, MACC is recommending against initiating a new relationship with Frontier. The $500 installation fee is simply ridiculous and unjustified, particularly when weighed against free or typical $30 installations by Comcast and similar offers from satellite providers. Whatever the benefits of Frontier's FiOS video, we do not believe the service is worth that initial investment. "We urge new customers to contact Comcast first, since it provides a locally franchised service in many ways superior compared to satellite providers."
Makes me wonder how much Comcast may have paid for that.
Regardless, that government official deserves disciplinary action at the very least. | |
|
|  Vumes
join:2009-01-04
Beaverton, OR | Maybe so, but if you live in the direct Frontier zone like I do, I say good for them for stating so. Frontier lied through their teeth to get where they are today, and now they are simply turning the other ass cheek. Down with Frontier, and hope they go belly up, so Verizon can come back and pick up the pieces at a fraction of the cost. Verizon's plan all along? maybe, we shall see. | |
|
| | | | Re: Regulator stepping over the line Hopefully Verizon will come back. Qwest sure isnt upgrading anything around my area... | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you on waiting for VZ to come back. They sold you off for a reason. They do NOT want to service you nor any other areas they sold. They want out of the landline business and will prove that more and more once their LTE network gets fully built. Why keep a dying landline business and all the costs that go with it when you can do the same if not more over a wireless Network and make more $$$ in the process?
VZ will only come back to that market in the form of LTE to complete with the DSL and FiOS that Frontier offers.
And Frontier may have lied through their teeth but it does NOT give any gov't body to tell you NOT to sign up with a company and go some where else. Frontier will fire back with a lawsuit and will win over this. Especially since they're telling the public to stay away from Dish and DirecTV as well. MACC will have their hands slapped a few times and with that they should be MADE to pay those companies a settlement for making them lose business. | |
|
| | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Regulator stepping over the line said by hottboiinnc:They want out of the landline business and will prove that more and more once their LTE network gets fully built.
So Verizon wants out of the landline business. Answer me this; why did they just spend 21 billion dollars to "wire" 1/2 of their service area?
What ticks me off was Verizon placing FiOS in areas that they sold; so selling those areas was not in the original plan. Government interference caused Verizon to sell those areas.
The subscribers a few feet from me can get FiOS but I can't, different CO. What a waste; move those FiOS lines to my CO. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Regulator stepping over the line said by batterup:...so selling those areas was not in the original plan. Government interference caused Verizon to sell those areas.... Gov't interference?!? VZ & AT&T play Government on all levels like a fiddle. And they benefit way more because of it. Those FIOS areas that they sold were their mistakes, for whatever reason, and not the fault of any Government interference. Every market is going to be different, and the best laid plans sometimes fail.
Sorry you can't get FIOS. It would really stink to have it so close and not be able to get it. | |
|
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Regulator stepping over the line said by JasonOD : Those FIOS areas that they sold were their mistakes, for whatever reason, and not the fault of any Government interference. Every market is going to be different, and the best laid plans sometimes fail.
Sorry you can't get FIOS. It would really stink to have it so close and not be able to get it.
Let me say this abut that; the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission mandated Verizon deploy FiOS in areas that don't have the necessities to utilize it in order to get a state wide CATV franchise.
I live in a heavily Republican area and no FiOS yet this area has the most advanced residential communication the world has ever seen.
»Move for FTTP? | |
|
| | | We disagree, as a comsumer, if we would say to steer away from Frontier, it would not have the effect of a state commission saying the same thing. These monopolies need to be regulated more and spanked if need be. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Regulator stepping over the line and the Gov't when stepping over the line needs to be as well. and this agency needs to be and be required to pay a settlement for doing it. The settlement should go to the companies they'll end up impacting. After all they can fine businesses. the Courts should be able to fine the gov't and make them pay settlements too. Fair is Fair. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by fAcEtIOUs:While agreeing with their sentiments and desire to punish Frontier, a government regulator is SUPPOSED to be impartial and shouldn't be directing people to a specific private competitor. I think he's doing exactly what Frontier wants, perhaps deliberately. It's clear that Frontier is deliberately trying to tank their FIOS obligations and abandon the market. The "Regulator" is helping them out.... maybe even complicit.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| said by fAcEtIOUs:While agreeing with their sentiments and desire to punish Frontier, a government regulator is SUPPOSED to be impartial and shouldn't be directing people to a specific private competitor. I agree to a point. However technically the report was from MACC's Policy & Regulatory Affairs Manager to the commission, not directly to the citizens in general.
In most if not all the affected area, cable tv is a duopoly. If they are going to inform people about what Frontier is doing and not recommend them, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who else people have as an alternate option even if they didn't mention them by name. | |
|
| | Why buy from Fios then? Why enter into a deal to take 100,000 users if you don't want them on your service?
This makes no freaking sense to me. | |
|
|  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Why buy from Fios then? said by Randall_Lind:Why enter into a deal to take 100,000 users if you don't want them on your service?
This makes no freaking sense to me.
Because it is business, it shouldn't make sense to you, 
--
BlooMe | |
|
|  darciliciousCyber LibrarianPremium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
·Frontier FiOS
| said by Randall_Lind:Why enter into a deal to take 100,000 users if you don't want them on your service?
This makes no freaking sense to me.
Believe it or not, because they didn't have any choice.
They originally only wanted the other 9 or so DSL/copper markets. Verizon threw in the FiOS markets (in particular because TV wasn't profitable for them, there was a big clue) and said take them or no deal.
In the end, it's (always) the customer who gets screwed (again). | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Why buy from Fios then? Actually FiOS is NOT profitable at all with VZ. They're turning a loss currently due to the fact the up take customer rate is VERY VERY LOW and its lower than expected. Why do you think they're not expanding it yet. They'd be stupid to. It's proven again that over building does NOT always mean a good thing.
VZ also has a clause that says that can pull out in markets after XX amount of days should their up take in customers NOT meet the needs of their investment. | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Why buy from Fios then? said by hottboiinnc:They're turning a loss currently due to the fact the up take customer rate is VERY VERY LOW and its lower than expected.
What statistics are you using to back that up because AFAIK your statement is untrue. They are not achieving the 40% uptake they had hoped for in most locations but that would be a very high uptake rate for an overbuilder that started in most of those locations less than five years ago. | |
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by hottboiinnc:Actually FiOS is NOT profitable at all with VZ. They're turning a loss currently due to the fact the up take customer rate is VERY VERY LOW and its lower than expected.
FiOS is more than CATV; it is POTS, internet and CATV. The CATV is the money maker but a fiber network in the long run will make more money than a copper one even for internet and POTS. It will just take many years and require abandoning the copper network. Of course with the government and some people demanding a free lunch it will not happen in my life time. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Why buy from Fios then? If CATV is the money maker, why is Frontier acting as if they want to get out of the CATV business? I would contend that internet is the real money maker.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Why buy from Fios then? said by PaulHikeS2:If CATV is the money maker, why is Frontier acting as if they want to get out of the CATV business? I would contend that internet is the real money maker.
To B honest I don't know. I do know that a provider only has to buy a mayor an indoor pool to be able to do CATV. | |
|
| | | | | | | They story I've read is that Frontier wants to get out of cable TV because the licensing costs involved in cable are too high. They are a relatively small cable provider so they might not have the same leverage that larger providers have to negotiate good distribution agreements. At least that's the story I've read in the Oregonian. | |
|
| | Ohhh great! Looks like more overtime is a comin. | |
|
| | Comcast? Comcast the only option? Pushing people to a monthly bandwidth cap doesn't help its constituents either. | |
|
| watice
join:2008-11-01
New York, NY | Re: Comcast? said by Anonymoose :Comcast the only option? Pushing people to a monthly bandwidth cap doesn't help its constituents either.
compared to the alternatives, it does help. The commission simply stated the obvious truth. | |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | $500!!! LOL!!!! | |
|
|  KeepOnRockinMusic Lover ForeverPremium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Re: $500!!! I agree. $500 in outrageous for an installation fee, IMO. I never liked Frontier anyways (or Verizon for that matter either). | |
|
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: $500!!! said by KeepOnRockin:$500 in outrageous for an installation fee I take it you have no idea what the equipment alone costs for the digital TV... Even at $500, they're probably barely breaking even at best, assuming the hardware is even half-decent. The fact of the matter is that while most providers HEAVILY subsidize these huge up-front costs, Frontier obviously needs the money more than a customer that they won't make anything on for the first 2 years. I wish more companies would actually focus on getting their products profitable when they get into financial trouble rather than just going bankrupt and screwing people out of the money they owe. | |
|
| | | | | Re: $500!!! No, what Frontier wants is for FiOS to lose enough subs so they can bail on their franchise agreement and shut it down. They likely never wanted this system, but Verizon made it part of the package deal. Frontier had to buy it or lose the entire purchase.
As for subsidizing equipment, it's done so many times that I can't name all the companies that do it, but, just for the record, I don't see the cell companies or satellite companies losing money, nor is Comcast or AT&T. They wouldn't do such a deal if they didn't think they'd turn a profit. In Frontier's case, they aren't interested in recouping their actual costs; they simply don't want new subs, and this is the only legal way they can find to chase them away. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: $500!!! they can shut down the network now anyway. You can NOT force a business to offer a service if they do not wish. Regardless of the contract. They're is always a clause that will give them the right. Frontier just hasn't made that move yet; but expect it this year. | |
|
| | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: $500!!! said by hottboiinnc:You can NOT force a business to offer a service if they do not wish. It's amazing how many people feel they have the RIGHTS to get service from a company, then demand heavy regulation for the company, and then complain when the company no longer wishes to continue doing business.
I fear that additional regulation (especially for broadband) will begin squeezing out all the smaller companies who just don't want the hassle of (or can't afford) additional regulation which causes them to do business at unsustainable margins.
The biggest companies can afford it, and all it will do is cause the largest and richest to grow larger and richer. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by hottboiinnc:You can NOT force a business to offer a service if they do not wish. Regardless of the contract. Sure you can, within the terms of that contract, a contract that they voluntarily signed. Frontier isn't simply getting the right to offer service from the franchise authority; what they're really getting is the right to place their cables and equipment in public rights of way, and that right can be revoked if they violate the agreement they entered into. Yes, Frontier could stop service tomorrow, since, as you say, they can't be forced to offer service they don't want to offer, but they can't do that without breaking the contract that let them have all those cables in the ground and incurring penalties, the big one being that the franchising authority could make them dig up all their lines and remove their equipment from the public rights of way. Assuming that Frontier still wants to offer Internet (very likely), that would severely impair them from offering service unless they have some other distribution system in mind. But even if they intend to shut down completely (far less likely), they'll still want to sell their system to someone else, and it's hard to sell a huge pile of cables that's just been yanked out of the ground. That means they have to live up to the terms of their agreement. And you are right that they have an escape clause. As has been mentioned here several times before, the escape clause is that, should subscriber levels fall low enough, they can stop offering service. THAT'S why they're jacking up their install fees to these insane levels. They're making it so expensive to join that no one in their right mind will, which means sub levels will fall, helped along by the massive rate increases they've proposed, so, at some point, they can switch off TV service without violating their contract and potentially having to break out the backhoes. | |
|
| | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by ISurfTooMuch:No, what Frontier wants is for FiOS to lose enough subs so they can bail on their franchise agreement and shut it down. They likely never wanted this system, but Verizon made it part of the package deal. Frontier had to buy it or lose the entire purchase. Exactly, so why (if they want to shut it down anyway) would they continue to subsidize the up-front costs? By jacking up the prices, they ensure that IF anyone signs up, at least they aren't forking out extra money to subsidize them since they wouldn't be able recoup those costs over a 2 year period anyway if they end up shutting it down. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: $500!!! That may be true, but I read your previous post as saying that all companies should stop subsidizing their equipment. They simply won't do that, since they know they're going to make that cash back later.
In Frontier's case, as you say, they want to shut down the service. And, as has been stated here in the past, their franchise agreement says that they can stop service if sub levels fall past a certain point. So, how do you stop people from signing up if you can't stop offering service until your sub levels fall below a certain point? You make that process so expensive that no one in their right mind would want to sign up, which is exactly what they're doing. And they probably do intend to shut down soon, so, should anyone be dumb enough to sign up, Frontier will still make money off of them. | |
|
| | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: $500!!! said by ISurfTooMuch:That may be true, but I read your previous post as saying that all companies should stop subsidizing their equipment. They simply won't do that, since they know they're going to make that cash back later. I wasn't trying to imply that companies should stop subsidizing their products or services... Just that those who aren't profitable should do better getting their finances in line rather than taking the bankruptcy "bail out" to shed debt. It's a tricky line for those companies because if you can't compete, it's harder to add customers, but if you don't have the money to subsidize, you shouldn't do it in the first place.
Again, I'm not saying that all companies should stop subsidizing up front costs. I run a small ISP and I subsidize my customer's equipment, knowing that I will break even during the contract period. Even so, many people don't realize how much companies subsidize their up-front costs. In my case, I'm saving my customers $250 on their startup costs by spreading the costs of the hardware out over the contract period, yet they still complain when I charge just enough to cover the labor for performing the install. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: $500!!! I do agree that companies subsidize at their own peril, but I think it's so enticing to add customers that no one wants to stop, even when their business is going down the drain. That's what doomed the old AT&T Wireless (the one that folded about six or seven years ago). They were losing subs because their coverage wasn't good at all, especially because of their bad transition to GSM, but they tried to reverse their losses by offering extremely cheap plans, probably planning to raise rates once they had righted the ship. But this put them so far into debt with non-profitable customers that they had to sell the company. They gambled big and lost big. Still, they probably didn't see another way out, since, had they charged rates that would have made money for the company, no one would have signed up for service, not on such a bad network. They were stuck.
Now, if Frontier was smart, they'd continue to add subs and then sell that system to someone else, since it's easier to sell a thriving business than one on the verge of collapse. Of course, their contract with Verizon may forbid a sale within a certain time frame of the purchase, so they may be stuck. No way for us to know. Or it may be that they didn't want this system and really don't know how to manage it, and they're too set in their ways or just plain stupid to figure it out. Wouldn't be the first case of an entrenched company not being able to see beyond the tip of its nose. | |
|
| | This is their intent, get people to cancel Frontier wants people to cancel so they can shut down FiOS for good.
Verizon didn't allow them to expand the service so it was doomed to failure anyway. | |
|
| | | Re: This is their intent, get people to cancel Frontier needs to go the way of the dial phone. All of these monopolies are screwing thier customers. We have Charter and Verizon and will never switch to Frontier. | |
|
 TrimlinePremium
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL | Just a Thought Why doesn't Frontier sell their FiOS TV to someone who could make it profitable. Grease it up and add internet and telephone services, it might just work.
Wonder if Google would be interested... | |
|
| | | Re: Just a Thought Or maybe Portland could buy it. Muni fiber, anyone? Chattanooga and Lafayette seem to offer much better deals than the telcos or cablecos do. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Just a Thought Will never happen. Unfair playing field and the City could NEVER afford to pay fair market value for it. They could though turn it into an open network for others.
And as far as Google buying it; that's a good one. They don't want to be in the business to help the customer any. They just want to put their DPI at every home and sell your data to who ever is willing to buy. IF they really cared- they'd provide support for their services people pay for now- Business Apps, Adwords, and so on. NONE of those get customer service and their FTTH network will be no different. They'll have a customer service phone number saying "if you are in need of support please email us at: blahblah@google.com otherwise visit our help boards at: help.google.com. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Just a Thought said by hottboiinnc:...They just want to put their DPI at every home and sell your data to who ever is willing to buy..... You mean like your ISP and wireless carrier does now? At least Google lets you see what its got (google.com/dashboard) and gives you the option to delete personally identifiable data (search history, location data) which they don't share unless subpoenaed (rare) in any case. | |
|
| | | | said by ISurfTooMuch:Or maybe Portland could buy it. Muni fiber, anyone? Chattanooga and Lafayette seem to offer much better deals than the telcos or cablecos do.
Moot point. Frontier doesn't operate anywhere within the city of Portland | |
|
| | | | With my tax dollars? hell no. | |
|
| | Fire Yourself If your ability to do business is so pathetic that the only option you feel you have is to rid yourself of 100,000 paying customers, you should have the wherewithal to simply retire or hang out in the Home Depot parking lot hoping some Gringo needs a brick layer. Let someone else come in that has taken high school economics and can make the business plan work. | |
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
·Frontier FiOS
| There needs to be legal recourse They lied to regulators from the beginning, but despite all the people who didn't want the deal to go through, they let it go through. Many people saw they couldn't handle it, and from the complaints against their company already before the buyout they couldn't handle their podunk coverage as it was.
I would of rather seen Verizon have to eat the debt, but now we have this loser of a corporation, ran by podunk losers who couldn't even manage a dsl network.
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
When the rich wage war it's the poor who die. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Verizon sucks. But not that much.  | |
|
| Vumes
join:2009-01-04
Beaverton, OR | Re: Verizon sucks. I think you meant...
But not as much as Frontier. | |
|
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Verizon sucks. said by Vumes:I think you meant...
But not as much as Frontier.
at&t too.
| |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| If regulators did their jobs.... ... They'd never allow deals like the spinoff in the first place.
They should always be extremely rough on mergers, buyouts, spinoffs, etc because it's usually always a screw job.
Think about it: If you ran a business, and your OBJECTIVE WAS TO GET IT FAIL, but still maintain your legal obligations, don't you realize how incredibly easy that would be?
Massive fees on everything. Zero advertisement. Don't add any new services. Cut down customer support. (For example, make it only 9 - 5 M-F with a 2 hour lunch, and oh, only have 2 people to man the phones, have everything roll over to voicemail, but never call anyone back.) etc etc
It would be so easy to cause a service to fail. Then you wring you hands, say the market didn't want it, and exit. Mission accomplished.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
|
