Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Permitted to Default on PA Broadband Deal
Rich writes "This is simply amazing to me. Broadband Reports has the latest chapter concerning Verizon's con of Pennsylvania unearthed by telco-critic Bruce Kushnick last February. A 1994 agreement between Verizon and the state of Pennsylvania paid dividends to Verizon in excess of $2.1 Billion in tax cuts and other deregulatory goodies over the years. Verizon's part of that deal was to deploy 45Mbps symmetrical fiber service fiber to PA homes and residents by 2015 (something they knew would never happen). This week the well-lobbied state has apparently voted to totally ignore the 1995 agreement, after Verizon's already walked away with the cash, leaving PA residents (who are already pretty low on the broadband food chain according to a new report) high and dry."
The unsurprising truth about most such affairs is that governments rarely spend money because it benefits their constituents, they generally spend it because it benefits their friends, and themselves. How much of Verizon's money went straight back to the people making the decision? 10%? 15%? 20%?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
to be a Pennsylvanian state legislator when the tax payers find out about all this. Too bad that the real bastards ( at Verizon) won't pay as high a price. Plus most of the legislators that made the original deal in 1994 probably aren't in office anymore. It dosen't sound like they put many checks or penalties into the agreement.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I know this is slashdot, but before I condemn "the capitalist pigs and their puppets in the government," I would like to know the whole story.
"I know this is slashdot, but before I condemn "the capitalist pigs and their puppets in the government," I would like to know the whole story."
;-)
Nah, as Asimov said: it's far easier to argue from ignorance
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
or campaign contribution will do.
Poor people incurred frothing, hateful wrath of the middle class for getting money for food and rent. Yet these large, powerful corporations walk away with bagfuls of money every day and it's "ho-hum, what else is new?" How bad is it going to have to get before you get angry enough to do something?
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
It happened like that here in Alabama. Before I could get either DSL or cable, I told them whoever was first would get my business. Cable beat DSL by 2 1/2 years. Now BellSouth is calling begging for me to change over. One woman said that my cable would slow down the more of my neighbors got on it. I said, good, sell them DSL , but leave me the hell alone.
Where were you when I wanted you. Where were you when I needed you...
People laugh at This guy for spending a couple billion to bring a 12Mbps connection to (everyone) in Japan for $21 a month; Sure his company is in $3.9 billion debt, but he has something to show for it! His customers have a 12 Mbps internet connection!!!1
12 years ago I had a 2400 baud modem on a telephone line I shared with 7 others in a student home. these days most rooms in student housing have free 100Mbit in each room. and (no longer a student) I have 2048/512 adsl for 65 euro/month in my own apartment.
In another 12 years I would expect at least another factor of 1000 increase in easily available bandwitdh.
this is in the netherlands, ( which is probably different from Pennsylvania ), but still.
willem
If the tax breaks were given for a specific purpose, and that purpose fails to be fulfilled, can the tax breaks be revoked? Retroactively?
C'mon, surely the IRS can do something here? I mean, they can invade a person's privacy and levy fines and such without much due process - think how much more fun it would be going after $2.1Billion...
How about a plain statement of the facts on PA newsmedia? "Verizon was awarded $2Bn in tax breaks, and is unable to deliver the goods..." Should have some effect on their stock, I would think. And as it's true (approved by the gov't, no less!), they can't get it censored as libel/slander...
Verizon, PECo (now Exelon) all own our politicians lock stock and barrel. It's not right, but that is how it's done in PA. Anyway, I have Verizon DSL and it works quite well. I don't have down-time more than maybe a couple times a year - usually due to heavy storm activity. I wish it was cheaper but the cable company is a monopoly too and will rip me off just the same. PA does not like competition - it stifles political graft.
Who cares if Verizon can or can't pay back the cash, the state should go after them anyway to deter other companies from trying to pull off the same stunt. If they bankrupt the company it is not a problem for the economy, the company can still run when in Chapter11. The only people who will lose are the shareholders of Verizon, the most important of which no doubt sat on the board of directors planning this rip off. Too bad for them.
There is one thing you are overlooking... money.
Yes, the politicians are voted in. But money plays a HUGE role in all this. What money does, among other things, is enable you to carry out actions that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. For example, advertising and other mass "brainwashing" campaigns. I hate to say it but humans fall for that kind of stuff. After all, how can you possibly explain how Americans fought a war in Iraq without any evidence, or how most Americans don't even know they invaded Panama, or they were behind the brutal regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala? The answer lies in information and brainwashing techniques... If politicians or governments didn't carry out these activities then what you are saying will be true: people voting should be responsible.
On a related point, regardless of who wins, the winner will always grant special rights to people donated the most money to his/her campaign. Make no mistake about it. This is why wealthy individuals, unions and corporations donate a lot of money to parties (no, they are not doing it because they are charitable--in particular, for-profit bodies like corporations are certainly not charitable). Once somone is elected, they grant ACCESS to their close confidants, party donors, etc. What this means is that whoever that donated to the party or the person will have greater ACCESS. Will this translate into a benefit for the donor? In most cases, yes.
For all these reasons (and many more), countries like USA are really plutocracies--not democracy! If you don't think so, just look around. Study countries and see what happens. Americans (or Canadians or French or whatever) feel proud that they are running a "democracy" but this is no different than in a developing country. There is little difference...
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
Actually, I agree with the second poster: you overlooked money. You did address it but you utterly failed to address why it's important. Basically, an uninformed or misinformed electorate is not able to participate in a democracy properly. Money is used to create and perpetuate the state where the mass of the electorate cast their votes under totally false beliefs. In that sense, money does equal votes.
Some of us do make the effort to go beyond CNN/Fox/<insert vast faceless corporate newsmachine here> but it takes time and a lot of effort which most people don't have. So, when they vote, the vote the way the money has told them to.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
You may think you have some control over the reigns of power, but look closely at any political system - an I challenge you to find one on earth that proves me wrong - and you will find a marketplace in which powerful men trade their power. Money, favors, other kinds of power... that is what politics and big business is about.
You do not spend money randomly - why you believe so optimistically that those in power do?
Ceci n'est pas une signature