Verizon PoliBlog, Broadband Deployment and Net Neutrality
Liz at Successful-Blog posted this link to the Verizon PoliBlog, a new blog from one of the Telecomms we all have been yelling about for the past few months. I think this is a good thing, especially since so far they’ve not censored the comments, though I expect that will change eventually. And Kamm, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The posts are the usual Verizon Spin, with little of substance to back up their claims of how well the US is doing in Fiber deployment. After all, when you say growth was 215%, and there are only a few thousand subscribers, the numbers look much different than they would in a nation like Japan where the network is pretty much already built out,– in other words percentages mean nothing, especially when there’s little or no competition like exists in other countries, who pay the same or less for much more capacity and speed than we do. The Verizon Articles are also full of a lot of PR pats on their own back for supplying us with the home shopping network and Bud TV via the wonders of FiOS. Funny how they don’t mention the STEAMROLLER approach to getting their way that they’ve used in Texas, New Jersey, California, Virginia and Indiana, and are now working toward in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. I live in Pennsylvania, and if the Cable Customer Choice and Competition Act, aka SB 1247 and HB 2880, are passed, what will happen is this–
- Franchise fees, which are right now negotiated on a town by town basis will be flattened to 3%, which is less than most municipalities currently get. That means a local tax hike for most communities.
- There will be no buildout requirements, which currently exist when franchises are negotiated on the municipality level. This means Verizon can “skim the cream” and leave huge areas unserviced — a broadband ghetto. It’s even possible they’ll drop the project the way they did last time they got tax incentives to build (if anyone else did this it would be called theft.)
- Courtesy Community hookups for municipal services will no longer be required. This means that Libraries, Municipal Services, Emergency Serivices, and others will have to purchase their broadband services. This is another cost that will be passed on to the taxpayer.
- Community TV and local access will no longer be a requirement, further distancing content providers from local residents and further marginalizing communities.
- In most cases prices will stay the same or go up.
- There will be very little additional competition.
- FiOS is still Asynchronous, unlike similar Fiber Optic networks in other countries.
- Verizon is notorious for its small print, so if you buy “unlimited access” or “unlimited bandwidth” don’t for a second believe you’ll get it.
So, while I applaud Verizon for opening a dialog, to say I’m unhappy with their scheming and underhanded tactics at the governmental and other levels is a gross understatement. Meanwhile I will be working the phone, letters to the editor, the governor, and everyone else I can get hold of to get Act 183 repealed to once again allow community WIFI in PA. That was what happened the last time Verizon lobbied the state politicians and spent money like a drunken sailor.
Technorati Tags: Verizon Blog, PA Cable Customer Choice and Competition Act, Community Wifi, FiOS, Cable Franchise, Municipal Tax, Unlimited Broadband, PA Act 183
10/7/06, 10:31 PM |
Hi!
Thanks for the trackback. I didn’t realize that they’d put the posts back up. Aren’t they all sugar? I have no love lost on any telco . . . they have all done me nasty service at some point in telephone customer career. I don’t want them anywhere closer to the Internet than they already are. Thank you, kindly.
Liz
10/8/06, 7:01 AM |
[…] Verizon PoliBlog, Broadband Deployment and Net Neutrality I live in Pennsylvania, and if the Cable Customer Choice and Competition Act, aka SB 1247 and HB 2880, are passed, what will happen is this– […]
10/9/06, 10:48 PM |
Well I will say this. I posted a comment on the Fiber Optics All the Way thread, and they did post my comment, and he did respond. Now let’s see if he posts my rebuttal. But you’re right, they’re all sugar. Their most recent post about One Million US Fiber Subscribers says this– “It is also worth noting that Broadband Reports has another post that details how cable’s coax network can carve out enough headroom to compete with fiber (they hope!) So once again, the race is on… and the consumer is the winner!” Now, if you read their literature that they give out to stockholders it basically says there is never going to be a price war. So the Verizon top dogs are speaking out both sides of their mouths as usual, and letting on like prices haven’t been fixed. Since most folks only have two broadband options, how the hell does this make the consumer the winner?
10/10/06, 2:40 PM |
[…] It appears that due to Grassroots Organizing and lots of noise over the issue, the Cable Choice Legislation that would have been a gift to Verizon has been stalled. According to the article in MultiChannel News, “More than 30 communities passed resolutions opposing bills that would wrest localities’ power to regulate cable franchises from them, shifting it to the state.” Some of the specific issues in the bill was that in the shift from local control to state control all buildout requirements would be scrapped, allowing redlining of “less profitable” areas such as rural areas, the ones that don’t have access to broadband as it is. There were caps on franchise fees and a different way of computing them which would have lessened local monetary benefits. There would have been no requirements for local municipal services such as town halls, schools, and libraries, to receive access as part of the package, another cost that would have been shifted to taxpayers. Also some other lesser details. Even people who currently are very unhappy with Comcast, in many cases the ONLY cable TV option, could see that this legislation would have been giving away too much in exchange for slight benefit. […]