Slashdot Mirror


Verizon and New Jersey Agree 4G Service Equivalent to Broadband Internet

An anonymous reader writes with news that Verizon and New Jersey regulators have reached a deal releasing Verizon from their obligation to have brought 45Mbps broadband to all NJ residents by 2010. Instead, 4G wireless service is considered sufficient. From the article: "2010 came and went and a number of rural parts of the state are still living with dial-up or subpar DSL. And even though the original deal was made in the days of modems and CompuServe, its crafters had the foresight to define broadband as 45Mbps, which is actually higher than many Verizon broadband customers receive today. ... In spite of that, and the thousands of legitimate complaints from actual New Jersey residents, the BPU voted unanimously yesterday to approve a deal with Verizon ... According to the Bergen Record, Verizon will no longer be obligated to provide broadband to residents if they have access to broadband service from cable TV providers or wireless 4G service. ... Residents who happen to live in areas not served by cable or wireless broadband can petition Verizon for service, but can only get broadband if at least 35 people in a single census tract each agree to sign contracts for a minimum of one year and pay $100 deposits."

3 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you have a contract that says you need to install fiber/cable, how the fuck is NOT installing fiber/cable fraud?

  2. Re:Democracy at work by organgtool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.

  3. Re:Democracy at work by profplump · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCOTUS just told us that it's only a bribe if you can prove quid-pro-quo. Which essentially means bribes *are* legal.

    Besides that, the idea that "buying a politician" and "buying an election" are separate is absurd. If you want to call them independent contractors feel free, but the flow of money and control are unaffected by such labels.