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."
there's more going on here than just bribery. $2.1 billion is too much money for legislature reps to walk away from. I mean, the votes you could buy with that kind of money far outweight whatever campaign contributions where involved. Maybe I'm wrong (it's possible that all this is happening so quietly no one's really noticed besides the /. crowd). But this is a hell of a lot of money for the legislatures to just kiss goodbye.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hello, I live in an area outside of a small town in Pennslyvania, and i am about 1/2 mile away from two way cable modem, i got stuck with one way. With the lovely technology known as one-way i have to go through verizon for the upload (local phone company). When i talked to a tech support person at Verizon, i was told "28.8 is an acceptable speed" . I am in area where I can not get two-way cable or dsl, so whoever gets to my area first will gain 47 new customers, and I have the petition to prove it. My tax dollars are NOT getting spent well at all in my opinion. That money that was given to Verizon could of probably been used for the public library funds they are trying to cut in this state....
I knew the telecom industry was sleazy what with practices like slamming and whatnot, but now it seems to have gotten downright criminal.
It looks like Verizon just ignored it's contract with the state of PA.
In my own state Qwest (we put the 'w' in qwality) has been under investigation for shady financials.
Anybody else been noticing a general contempt for the general population from the telecoms?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Not sure what you meant by this comment. There was a /. story a couple of days ago about 12Mb/s broadband access in Japan for $21 a month, which I'm sure is a situation a lot of people here would like to end up in (judging by the comments to the article).
In fact, because NTT is state-run, the government is very good at ensuring adequate competition- a bill was just passed forcing NTT to cut the rates it charges competitors for use of its lines. So I'd say that the telecom situation in Japan isn't that bad.
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
Cliffnotes version:
Verizon says that they can wire the state for $X.
Legislators say 'We can't give you $X, but we can cut you a tax break'
With $X cut off their expenses, Verizion stock raises. Options are cashed. Resultant stock is sold for hefty profit.
Dot-com bubble bursts.
PA is left rubbing its ass, Verizon scales back, C*o's laugh all the way to the bank.
Verizon management states that it is impossible to do what they promised because the (choose one or more):
A)Economy
B)Lack of infrastructure
C)Technology did not keep pace
D)Management found out what Fiber actually is
E)Hackers
F)Lack of demand
G)Sunspots
(Editors note: This comment is purely speculation, and should be treated as such by all parties currently or previosly employed by Verizon, its subsidiaries, or anyone in a position to sue my ass off.)
The real point of this article is not to inflame the reader about corporate greed and political scandal. As long as you haven't been living under a log for your entire life, you should be well aware of this.
The article shows me that simply a mistake was found by some intelligent people in state government, and it was repealed. The only reasonable alternative in this case was that Verizon continued to have its state-paid benefits for 11 more years, which is unreasonable. Thank God that the Mennonites decided to take their heads out of their rears now instead of later.
If you're incensed about the fact that Verizon got off "scott-free", then get over it. That kind of thing can't be fixed. Who's going to pay back the state of Pennsylvania? A company always hovering near rock-bottom? Where is Verizon going to get all the cash to pay the state back? Even worse, why would Verizon ever have to pay back money that was due to it by contract?
Supplying fiber to every home in PA was a joke. I'm just glad that they caught this in 2003 instead of waiting until the year 2015 to whine about it.
GO LEGISLATURE!
I think the main problem with broadband is the method ISPs charge for Internet access. I propose that, since broadband ISPs are virtually a monopoly, they should all just get switch away from flat rates and charge per bytes transferred. RIAA will be happy too since the cost of bandwidth will then effectively eliminate many P2P swappers. ISPs will then have more money and will be able to provide service to more areas.
i think there are plenty of other things going on here, and I think it's good you raised the right questions.
I use Verizon and in PA. We just got a notice in the mail a few weeks back saying our DSL monthly is going down (yes - down) in cost. I dont know if this was a factor or not, but I wouldnt be surprised.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
What's really going to bake your noodle is when you realize that nobody's ever going to go to jail for this.
Voters "prefer" the two-party system largely because they've been brainwashed into thinking that a third-party candidate has little chance of succeeding. I remember seeing some poll the first time Perot was around suggesting that he would have picked up as many as 20 points if people who wanted to vote for him would have done so but didn't because he was a third-party candidate. This would have given him the election with a plurality of 39%. It's not necessarily true (I've never been able to find the source again), but I know of some people that wanted to vote for him but didn't because they figured he couldn't win.
I wonder if the tendencies aren't (slowly) changing. As more people see more partisan bickering at all levels of government and generally grow tired of the rancor, not to mention the perceived corruption, the grumbling grows, and as the Whigs found out, no party is guaranteed a permanent place in politics.
The upcoming California recall could prove interesting. The Republican vote may be heavily fragmented between as many as a half-dozen candidates. DNC chairman McAuliffe has decreed that no Democrats will be on the ballot (and few Democrats will want to cross him at this point). This opens up the possibility of a Libertarian or a Green party candidate picking up enough votes to make it into office. Since the vote is a plurality vote, if there are ten candidates, it only takes 10% + 1 to make it in. I'd like to see a Libertarian in office myself (especially since we have line-item veto here), but I'd settle for a Green party candidate, just to muck with the system. I'm not sure it can get any worse than it is now.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
"You've got a sucker in Pennsylvania!"
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]