Verizon Redlineing

[Juan]

Once again Verizon does not want to provide video service to rural area's!! http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/nj/index.ssf?/base/news-2/11410170278140.xml&coll=2



Critics of the plan maintain it would omit South Jersey and the northwest portion of the state -- primarily rural areas where installing the fiber optics would prove costly.

 

[riffjim4069]

Stupid is as stupid does...

Problem: CableTV prices are too high and 97% of Consumers have only one choice of cable TV providers, thus no choice...even though The Telecommunications Act cleared the way for cable competition years ago. However, there are currently more than 33,000 local franchise authorities who, over the years, have formed a government sponsored collusion of sort whereby the local government extort billions from the cable companies in exchange for Big Cable having pseudo-exclusive control of their assigned areas. It's the good ole boy network and their tit-for-tat operations have been costing you, the hard-working, tax-paying citizens billions each year. You're getting screwed, blued and tattooed by these people!

Solution: Choice! Get rid of the cronies, get rid of the good ole boy networks, break up these government sponsored monopolies...and let the free marker drive down prices, improve service and selection, and make these cable pundits work to earn your dollar.

The Cable TV Argument: The Telcos are only going to serve the wealth!

Common Sense Says: Wrong! The facts show that less affluent American's spend just as much on their Cable TV entertainment as do their affluent counterparts. This is strictly populate density and strategic location issue...nothing more, nothing less. The wealthy will save, and the poor will save on their Cable TV bills.

The Cable TV Argument: The Telcos won't serve everyone...people will be disenfranchised.

Common Sense Says: More deception! Cable does not, nor will they ever serve everyone. How can people having more, and more affordable cable TV choices be a bad things? It will only be bad for Big Cable and their local franchise puppet-heads who will be losing free access to your back pocket...the F'ing scumbags! BTW, Big Cable is allowed to provide unregulated telephone services, whereas the Telcos video and telephones services are regulated. Again, don't listen to these two-faced, lying, sacks of sh*t.

I am amazed how someone, anyone, would fall for this Big Cable sponsored propaganda...sick, lame, and lazy of mind is all I can figure. Anyway, the citizens of Virginia aren't quite to stupid...they have overwhelmingly voted to break down the barriers into the cable TV marketplace so ALL consumers will FINALLY have real cable TV choices. Ugh! I can go on for hours, but I'm getting another cable TV headache.

I guess Mother Gump was correct when she said, "Stupid is as stupid does." All I can say is don't be stupid.

 

[cdru]

Once again Verizon does not want to provide video service to rural area's!! http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/nj/index.ssf?/base/news-2/11410170278140.xml&coll=2



Critics of the plan maintain it would omit South Jersey and the northwest portion of the state -- primarily rural areas where installing the fiber optics would prove costly.

Is rural South Jersey and the northwest portion of the state serviced 100% by cablecos?

 

[Juan]

Is rural South Jersey and the northwest portion of the state serviced 100% by cablecos?

. Every municipality is served by the cable co's and the must service every house if a municipality requieres it. Verizon has announced they dont want to run fiber in the rural area's thus giving them an unfare advantage over the cable co's. Verizon wants a "state wide" franchise thus leaving the municipalities out of the picture. Verizon is not the only phone company in NJ. They dont provide service to most rural parts of NJ. The parts they do cover are thay ones they want to screw over by not providing fiber service to. If Verizon wants a statewide franchise THEN THEY SHOULD OFFER FIOS TO THEIR ENTIRE FRANCHISE AREA AND NOT JUST THE AFFLUENT AREAS!!!!!

 

[korsjs]

are you ever going to give up on verizon does not like the poor theory?

 

[Juan]

Its not the poor they dont like its the less densley populated areas they dont like. big difference

 

[vurbano]

1. This isnt a Public utility. Its a private company that can sell their services wherever the FK they want too.
2. Its perfectly reasonable for Verizon to go after areas of high population first where they can get some good cash flow.

 

[rcbridge]

It's just economics, in the begining they will lose money even in the cities but that will turn around. Try and get a cable company to run a cable for one or a few homes in a rural area same deal.
You still have satellite as an option!

 

[liquidnw]

Do people know?

When people say cable is forced to serve all areas in a Local area that is false. Often in these agreements include density requirements. Meaning if of a certain number of homes don't exist in an area then cable companies aren't forces ot serve you. Which is why you hear people who are in a specific cable company area but can't get cable unless they pay some rediculous fee for there street to get wired . In my eyes what verizon is doing is and upgrade to there current lines. I don't recall cable companies being forced to upgrade or commit to future upgrade everwhere in a area before offering phone service. If they fell a certain area wasn't worth upgrading right away they won't do it right a way if at all.

 

[korsjs]

Its not the poor they dont like its the less densley populated areas they dont like. big difference

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showpost.php?p=486737&postcount=4

you have hit poor and now poplulation that verizon does not like. what will it be tomorrow? race, weight, looks????

 

[LonghornXP]

My question is this below.

Are the areas in question served by a cable company today or not. If these areas aren't served by a cable company they shouldn't expect Verizon to serve them. Now if this area is served by a cable company than I think Verizon should also serve this area as well. Trust me in that cable might complain like heck about this but they have and still are the worst companies about this. For example many areas within Pinellas County still don't have Bright House Networks service available as the entire area only has about 10 houses and they have in their franchise agreement that if they don't have more than x number of houses within a certian distance they aren't required to wire it up. Also this area happens to be where I live and these 10 houses are on about 45 acres of land and each house is no less than 500,000 now with over half costing 1 million or more. You would think if any 10 houses would be wired at an extra cost it would be these as these are owned by people with more than enough money to buy everything they could offer but they didn't care. We ended up just paying them the cost to wire us up which they did. They actually told us it wasn't worth paying the money even if we bought everything if you can believe that.

These houses were built about 6 years ago if that gives you an idea. What is funny is that Verizon paid for our area to get fiber while BHN didn't even want to bother with us. Go figure so from my point of view I'd be more worried about this issue if it was the BHN CEO making choices compared to the Verizon CEO.

But again the biggest question I want answered is if these areas in South Jersey have cable TV service available to them or not because it wouldn't be the first time an article failed to say this on purpose nor will it be the last time either.

 

[Juan]

1. This isnt a Public utility. Its a private company that can sell their services wherever the FK they want too.
2. Its perfectly reasonable for Verizon to go after areas of high population first where they can get some good cash flow.

umm Verizon is most definantly a public utility(wireless is unregulated) and no they cant just sell where they want to (helpful hint thats why they need a franchise)

 

[Juan]

When people say cable is forced to serve all areas in a Local area that is false. Often in these agreements include density requirements. Meaning if of a certain number of homes don't exist in an area then cable companies aren't forces ot serve you. Which is why you hear people who are in a specific cable company area but can't get cable unless they pay some rediculous fee for there street to get wired . In my eyes what verizon is doing is and upgrade to there current lines. I don't recall cable companies being forced to upgrade or commit to future upgrade everwhere in a area before offering phone service. If they fell a certain area wasn't worth upgrading right away they won't do it right a way if at all.

I was reffering specifically to New Jersey other states have other laws

 

[Juan]

My question is this below.

Are the areas in question served by a cable company today or not. If these areas aren't served by a cable company they shouldn't expect Verizon to serve them. Now if this area is served by a cable company than I think Verizon should also serve this area as well. Trust me in that cable might complain like heck about this but they have and still are the worst companies about this. For example many areas within Pinellas County still don't have Bright House Networks service available as the entire area only has about 10 houses and they have in their franchise agreement that if they don't have more than x number of houses within a certian distance they aren't required to wire it up. Also this area happens to be where I live and these 10 houses are on about 45 acres of land and each house is no less than 500,000 now with over half costing 1 million or more. You would think if any 10 houses would be wired at an extra cost it would be these as these are owned by people with more than enough money to buy everything they could offer but they didn't care. We ended up just paying them the cost to wire us up which they did. They actually told us it wasn't worth paying the money even if we bought everything if you can believe that.

These houses were built about 6 years ago if that gives you an idea. What is funny is that Verizon paid for our area to get fiber while BHN didn't even want to bother with us. Go figure so from my point of view I'd be more worried about this issue if it was the BHN CEO making choices compared to the Verizon CEO.

But again the biggest question I want answered is if these areas in South Jersey have cable TV service available to them or not because it wouldn't be the first time an article failed to say this on purpose nor will it be the last time either.

Comcast Cable serves the northwestern part of NJ. verizon does not plan to upgrade any phone services in the region

 

[Juan]

It's just economics, in the begining they will lose money even in the cities but that will turn around. Try and get a cable company to run a cable for one or a few homes in a rural area same deal.
You still have satellite as an option!

My Point EXACTLY

 

[liquidnw]

I was reffering specifically to New Jersey other states have other laws

Are you saying that NJ state law says a cable company has to wire everywhere including areas such as those pointed out by longhorn above?

 

[LonghornXP]

Are you saying that NJ state law says a cable company has to wire everywhere including areas such as those pointed out by longhorn above?

I need to check out the state law because if a new entrant must cover all the state than it seems that Comcast didn't have to abide by that rule. Now if no law requires the whole state to be wired by said company than why couldn't Verizon just upgrade their existing copper phone customers. It seems like the state or areas want Verizon to serve beyond their phone customer areas which to me seems unfair as Comcast doesn't have to serve customers outside of their area which seems to be northwestern New Jersey.

Now again I have no idea what the specifics are on this but only stating the types of things these articles try and do while failing to say a few quite important bits of information.

 

[LonghornXP]

umm Verizon is most definantly a public utility(wireless is unregulated) and no they cant just sell where they want to (helpful hint thats why they need a franchise)

Your wrong my friend. Cable TV service is rated as a BPU and not as a public utility and the two are very different things. Verizon phone service is not rated as a BPU and is a public utility but if Verizon offered cable TV service the cable TV side would be rated as a BPU and not as a public utility under New Jersey state law. This doesn't mean that Verizon won't be required to get a franchise agreement but very very very few states consider cable tv service to be a public utility. Also of note both federal and state laws specifically state that cable tv service companies are not a public utility. Also of note even if a phone company offers cable TV service the phone side of the business would be considered a public utility and the cable TV side would be considered a BPU which again isn't a public utility. A public utility can only be classified as that if it provide services that are essential to daily life. Power, phone and gas services for example are required and essential to daily life while cable tv service for example is not.

Get your facts straight next time you post please.

Edit...also just to make sure you don't go after me on this I'll go further. Verizon FIOS upgrades are mainly to offer TV service over fiber. Even though phone service will also be delivered over this network the fact remains that all current customers with Verizon have and will still have phone service which is a public utility. So even if Verizon did redline customers as long as the customers being redlined didn't lose phone service Verizon has done nothing wrong have they. So we are only focused on the cable tv side of things and as such the cable tv side isn't a public utility like the phone side is. Now cable TV will still be considered a BPU and as such they are still required to get a franchise agreement and this franchise agreement will determine what they must do as far as who they wire. But again they aren't forced to wire these customers because its a public utility they are forced to wire the area because of the franchise agreement. These are two very different issues we are talking about.

 

[Juan]

I need to check out the state law because if a new entrant must cover all the state than it seems that Comcast didn't have to abide by that rule. Now if no law requires the whole state to be wired by said company than why couldn't Verizon just upgrade their existing copper phone customers. It seems like the state or areas want Verizon to serve beyond their phone customer areas which to me seems unfair as Comcast doesn't have to serve customers outside of their area which seems to be northwestern New Jersey.

Now again I have no idea what the specifics are on this but only stating the types of things these articles try and do while failing to say a few quite important bits of information.

I will clarify.. Local municipalities under LOCAL franchise agreements can and have requiered cable co's to offer service to every residence. Its not a state law its part of the contractual agreement between the town and the cable co. Also Verizon has no plans to serve their existing customer base in northwest new jersey and southern new jersey with fios. Thats what the big political fight over the statewide franchise is about.. It has nothing to do with any independent telco area.

 

[Juan]

Your wrong my friend. Cable TV service is rated as a BPU and not as a public utility and the two are very different things. Verizon phone service is not rated as a BPU and is a public utility but if Verizon offered cable TV service the cable TV side would be rated as a BPU and not as a public utility under New Jersey state law. This doesn't mean that Verizon won't be required to get a franchise agreement but very very very few states consider cable tv service to be a public utility. Also of note both federal and state laws specifically state that cable tv service companies are not a public utility. Also of note even if a phone company offers cable TV service the phone side of the business would be considered a public utility and the cable TV side would be considered a BPU which again isn't a public utility. A public utility can only be classified as that if it provide services that are essential to daily life. Power, phone and gas services for example are required and essential to daily life while cable tv service for example is not.

Get your facts straight next time you post please.

Edit...also just to make sure you don't go after me on this I'll go further. Verizon FIOS upgrades are mainly to offer TV service over fiber. Even though phone service will also be delivered over this network the fact remains that all current customers with Verizon have and will still have phone service which is a public utility. So even if Verizon did redline customers as long as the customers being redlined didn't lose phone service Verizon has done nothing wrong have they. So we are only focused on the cable tv side of things and as such the cable tv side isn't a public utility like the phone side is. Now cable TV will still be considered a BPU and as such they are still required to get a franchise agreement and this franchise agreement will determine what they must do as far as who they wire. But again they aren't forced to wire these customers because its a public utility they are forced to wire the area because of the franchise agreement. These are two very different issues we are talking about.

bpu= board of public utilities http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/home/home.shtml please read you may learn something