Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations, Blames Net Neutrality Plans
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Verizon Communications will sell its local wireline operations in California, Florida and Texas for $10.5 billion, citing uncertainty around federal Internet regulation as one reason for the move, although Verizon executives said the sale has been in the works for several years. It's no secret that local wireline phone service has been a shrinking industry, and Verizon and other carriers see mobile as their greatest growth opportunity. Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam cited the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming net neutrality proposal as another potential threat to the growth of wired services. 'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'"
This is not new for Verizon at all - they have been shedding their landline and FiOS business for years. Back in 2007 they abandoned Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, selling off the business to FairPoint Communications, a tiny North Carolina company that struggled for years to overcome billing system issues. FairPoint announced then that they would not be expanding the fiber Internet service (FiOS TV never got started here) and the service has been static since then. (On the positive side, my bill hasn't increased since 2007!)
Even in Massachusetts, where Verizon still operates FiOS TV, they announced a couple of years back that they would not expand service to more areas. This tripe about Net Neutrality is just a convenient smokescreen for what they've been planning all along.
As we've noted, Verizon's been looking to offload its fixed-line assets for years, since the company clearly finds wireless service (and caps and overages) a far-more profitable venture. As such they've spent the last few years actually raising rates and neglecting unwanted customers in the hopes they'll leave to wireless, or leave to companies like Comcast (where they'll then be pitched...you guessed it...Verizon Wireless services as part of a co-marketing arrangement). After massive sales to Frontier and Fairpoint in years past, Verizon this week convinced Frontier to buy all of the company's DSL and FiOS customers in Florida, Texas and California. Amusingly (or not), Verizon is trying to spin the latest deal to pretend they were forced down this path because of net neutrality: ...
By "Obama Phone" I assume you mean the Lifeline Assistance program, which was put in place long before Obama took office. In fact, it was instituted under none other than Ronald Reagan.
I have an uncle like you., and it's depressing.
Verizon has been trying to shed their wireline service for years. They have done a few here and there, using Reverse Morris Trust (basically a way to fuck the company buying VZ's assets, and the constituents... Frontiernet has screwed up everything they have touched)
The timing just coincides with the FCC ruling, and a great opportunity for VZ to talk out of it's collective ass
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
The monopolies exist because they were granted by the local governments, which prohibit competition
1992 Cable Act forbids local governments issuing exclusive franchises.
The monopolies exist because Google is the only company that isn't a telecom and is interested in spending a hundred million dollars per city to fiber it up, and they only have so many hundred million dollars to spend.
It's because most people today tend to grossly misunderstand what socialism is, and what "market capitalism" is.
An actual "Socialist" would want to do something like nationalize all the major telecom companies.
Market Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the Government acting as arbiter and enforcer of basic rules of fair competition, because that is a core requirement. When Adam Smith was alive, Socialism hadn't even been thought up yet. Instead, you had the government (generally run by a Monarch/Nobility) granting exclusive privileges or outright monopolies to certain individuals or corporations, like giving the East India Company a monopoly on the import of tea.
Sound familiar?
This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue. Nobody's even remotely talking about nationalization.