T-Mobile CEO Offers To Pay For Fire Fighters' $73K Verizon Bill

[cortexodus]

Litterally Billions in tax breaks? I call utter bullshit.

Besides, a Tax Break isn't "taking" anything, it's simply not having to pay as much.

Yes, billions with a "b". The wireless telecoms have straight-up fucking stolen something like 400 billion in tax dollars with no repercussions. The idea that you would consider this fact incredulous is pretty astonishing, actually. It's common knowledge that we as an entire country have gotten the shaft on telecom build-out since the late 90's.

Check out "The Book of Broken Promises".

If someone tells you "Hey, give me a tax break and I promise to ensure that money goes into infrastructure build-out for everyone!" and you say "Sure thing! We'll all be looking forward to that!" and then that person sits back and says "HAHA you fucking rube! Thanks for the tax break. I'm not doing shit but lining my pockets" then, yea, they literally fucking took that money.

 

[Darunion]

angry rant reduced

Please provide source? Your for-profit book source is horrible, I would read it but he charges $25 for it. So I am glad he is profiting from this, makes him very honest and quite the soldier for the cause. In simple terms, not credible.

So because these companies did not do what you want them to do, they are stealing? Do you really think they have done nothing in the last 20 years? You must be young and don't remember dial up a no mobile networks nor wireless data options for consumers.

 

[0neTwo]

I helped a little old lady cross the street. Didnt charge her a thing, I volunteered to do it.

I'd like Verizon to make 8 loops of fiber around my house now, free of charge.

 

[bigdogchris]

Yeah they only save the lives and property of everyone on the island for free... Fuck em

You are billed even if it's a volunteer fire department.

And like I said, it can be easily abused. Maybe they want to build on top of a hill, or in an area with no existing service, or whatever because they know the utilities will be put in for free. Should Verizon (or others) have to give them everything for free regardless of cost?

Also, many civil services receive the actual services for free. I would bet the fire department gets free phone and Internet service. It's usually negotiated in with the contract the providers have with the city/village.

 

[cortexodus]

Please provide source? Your for-profit book source is horrible, I would read it but he charges $25 for it. So I am glad he is profiting from this, makes him very honest and quite the soldier for the cause. In simple terms, not credible.

So because these companies did not do what you want them to do, they are stealing? Do you really think they have done nothing in the last 20 years? You must be young and don't remember dial up a no mobile networks nor wireless data options for consumers.

*shrug* I'm 36yrs old.

Since you've already reduced what I wrote to "angry rant", I already know it doesn't matter what sources I provide. The goalposts and requirements for "valid sources" would just shift anyway. Such is the nature of arguing on the internet, and I accept it. Here's a reasonably short summary specifically about Verizon's role in what I'm describing, anyway. Not that anyone here will bother to look into it further.

I do remember the promise of amazing broadband and here we are, decades later, with laws that prevent municipal broadband and a whole slew of new lawmakers coming down the pipe that want to make cable package bundling look like the best times that ever came to pass. Anecdotally/personally, I pay more now for worse service than I have ever had and there's literally no other options where I live.

It's cool though, I should just not buy internet at all. That'll show that multi-billion dollar juggernaut the power of my competition!

You've jammed some shit into my mouth that I didn't actually say so, I'll just retort with "Sure, they've done 'stuff'. Which is to say they've done the barest minimum necessary to continue providing the least amount of product possible with the absolute maximum profit". Now, whether you think that kind of thing is a-ok or not is probably a matter of perspective. I suspect most people around this forum aren't pinko commies like me who think profit should not be the only goal driving businesses that provide critical infrastructure.

Honestly, I don't particularly care that people think telecoms (or any giant for-profit corp, really) would clearly never bend rules to their advantage and fuck over the entire country in the process and pursuit of unmitigated greed. But, it's truly surprising (particular in light of the entire platform of the incoming administration) that it's not an automatic assumption among the entire populace of this country that our government and the giant corporations who've bought it would gladly light your and my fucking houses on fire if it meant more shareholder dollars and no repercussions.

*as an aside, it's not like Verizon is in the wrong with relation to the OP, but I see it as just another line carved in the bed-post they fuck us on that they've responded so poorly to the situation.

 

[Crosshairs]

Litterally Billions in tax breaks? I call utter bullshit.

Besides, a Tax Break isn't "taking" anything, it's simply not having to pay as much.

They received 2.1 billion from PA in exchange for offering 45Mbps symmetrical speeds to 50% of Pennsylvania by 2002...15 years later and they still haven't delivered.
Of course, you can blame the crooked politicians that let them get away with it, but however you slice it, Verizon stole that money

 

[wizdum]

*shrug* I'm 36yrs old.

Since you've already reduced what I wrote to "angry rant", I already know it doesn't matter what sources I provide. The goalposts and requirements for "valid sources" would just shift anyway. Such is the nature of arguing on the internet, and I accept it. Here's a reasonably short summary specifically about Verizon's role in what I'm describing, anyway. Not that anyone here will bother to look into it further.

I do remember the promise of amazing broadband and here we are, decades later, with laws that prevent municipal broadband and a whole slew of new lawmakers coming down the pipe that want to make cable package bundling look like the best times that ever came to pass. Anecdotally/personally, I pay more now for worse service than I have ever had and there's literally no other options where I live.

It's cool though, I should just not buy internet at all. That'll show that multi-billion dollar juggernaut the power of my competition!

You've jammed some shit into my mouth that I didn't actually say so, I'll just retort with "Sure, they've done 'stuff'. Which is to say they've done the barest minimum necessary to continue providing the least amount of product possible with the absolute maximum profit". Now, whether you think that kind of thing is a-ok or not is probably a matter of perspective. I suspect most people around this forum aren't pinko commies like me who think profit should not be the only goal driving businesses that provide critical infrastructure.

Honestly, I don't particularly care that people think telecoms (or any giant for-profit corp, really) would clearly never bend rules to their advantage and fuck over the entire country in the process and pursuit of unmitigated greed. But, it's truly surprising (particular in light of the entire platform of the incoming administration) that it's not an automatic assumption among the entire populace of this country that our government and the giant corporations who've bought it would gladly light your and my fucking houses on fire if it meant more shareholder dollars and no repercussions.

*as an aside, it's not like Verizon is in the wrong with relation to the OP, but I see it as just another line carved in the bed-post they fuck us on that they've responded so poorly to the situation.

I also wasn't simply tax breaks. They were permitted to add an additional "fee" to their service for the purpose of generating money for this upgrade...that never happened. And some of them are still charging this fee today.

This PBS link was active last year (and for many years prior to that), not sure why it was deleted, but here's the archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016012...ngely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

 

[sirmonkey1985]

But if they do stuff like this for free even one time, then everybody will expect them to do it for free.

Once you give a handout to one person, just about everybody will expect to get the same.

there's a massive difference though doing this for a company and doing this for a "volunteer" fire department where the customers they're claiming this will effect on the island are the very same people that will have to foot the bill in donations/taxes to the fire department to keep it running..

 

[lcpiper]

They received 2.1 billion from PA in exchange for offering 45Mbps symmetrical speeds to 50% of Pennsylvania by 2002...15 years later and they still haven't delivered.
Of course, you can blame the crooked politicians that let them get away with it, but however you slice it, Verizon stole that money

Ummm, did anyone read the fine print?

“Bell commits to deploy the technologies necessary to provide universal broadband availability in 2015. In order to meet this commitment, Bell plans to deploy a broadband network using fiber optics or other comparable technology that is capable of supporting services requiring bandwidth of at least 45 megabits per second or its equivalent.”

Now this was in the 90's when this all was being drafted up and I remember quite well that although Fiber was used as the infrastructure pipe, no one ever got fiber back then to the end point. It was either cable or DSL and Verizon used DSL. No one should be looking at this and thinking that the agreement was to roll fiber out to the end points because no one did that back then. That never was done by anyone until Google Fiber started rolling out.

Now this is the timeline promised:

“Verizon PA has committed to making 20% of its access lines in each of rural, suburban, and urban rate centers broadband capable within five days from the customer request date by end of year 1998; 50% by 2004; and 100% by 2015.”

So by 2002, 20% of PA is supposed to have broadband available over Fiber "or a comparable technology" and it's supposed to deliver speeds equivalent to 45 megabits per second. Now I would think this means a combination of upstream and downstream bandwidth totaling 45 megabits per second.
They were supposed to extend this service to 50% coverage by 2004 and be completed with 100% by 2015.

Now this is BroadbandNow's breakdown of coverage in PA.
http://broadbandnow.com/Pennsylvania

Megabit per second[edit]
megabit per second (symbol Mbit/s or Mb/s, often abbreviated "Mbps") is a unit of data transfer rate equal to:

• 1,000,000 bits per second
• 1,000 kilobits per second
• 125,000 bytes per second
• 125 kilobytes per second

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units#Megabit_per_second

Pennsylvanias population is:

The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of Pennsylvania was 12,802,503 on July 1, 2015,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania

BroadbandNow says;

There are 1.3 million people in Pennsylvania without access to a wired connection capable of 25mbps download speeds.

1.3 million of 12.8 million looks like about 10% which matches this comment from BroadbandNow;

90.2% of Pennsylvanians have access to wired broadband 25mbps or faster.

BroadbandNow says the 25mpbs bandwidth rate is the download spead, there is an addition 3 mbps upload speed.

You guys can read the rest for the page but 76% have access to 100 mbps and 10% can get Gigabit service.

Now I don't think it's a stretch to say that much of the 90% that can get 25 mbps includes the 76% that have 100 mbps and even the 10% that have gigabit available which loosely translates to 10% that get squat and another 14% that only have 25 mbps available, the rest have reasonably decent options.

Now this is what BroadbandNow is saying about things at the endpoint. But I think this agreement and initiative was more like infrastructure and essentially making sure that bandwidth was going to reach all the ISPs, not as I said, to the endpoints.

This is enough quotes and links for now.

 

[nilepez]

Now this was in the 90's when this all was being drafted up and I remember quite well that although Fiber was used as the infrastructure pipe, no one ever got fiber back then to the end point. It was either cable or DSL and Verizon used DSL. No one should be looking at this and thinking that the agreement was to roll fiber out to the end points because no one did that back then. That never was done by anyone until Google Fiber started rolling out.

That's not true. At the very least municipal fiber existed before Google Fiber. Lafayette Louisiana's LUS Fiber started turning on service in 2008, as I recall and it was FTTH. Chattanooga did the same thing in 2010 (around the time of Google), but from what I can tell, they started planning this in 1999. In both cases, they were delayed by encumbents like AT&T, Comcast and Cox cable. In the case of Lafayette, I think it was delayed by 3 or 4 years.

 

[lcpiper]

I wonder if you realize the irony of your own statement there, considering.

Yes I read the information and yes I understand what Verizon claims (that the FD asked for the most expensive option which seems unlikely) but when I look at the fact that it's a volunteer fire department asking for this service and not just some ordinary business that's out to make a profit I think Verizon would have just done well on many levels including a good conscience and doing what's right by just getting this shit done without another word.

There's always two sides to a story, obviously, but in this case I just don't give a fuck what Verizon's side of it happens to be.

Wait does it "seem unlikely"?

How is it you think companies get quotes for services?

You mash the bumper on your car and you call me up and ask what it would cost to straighten out your bent bumper and I give you a quote. And straightening out the bumper is more expensive then replacing it with a new bumper. Did you not ask me for the most expensive option? And if I tell you "It would be cheaper to just replace it with a new one, and if you elect to use a third party bumper or a used bumper that is in serviceable condition, It would be much cheaper. Is this not an accurate and believable and reasonable synopsis of how this event might have transpired?

 

[lcpiper]

That's not true. At the very least municipal fiber existed before Google Fiber. Lafayette Louisiana's LUS Fiber started turning on service in 2008, as I recall and it was FTTH. Chattanooga did the same thing in 2010 (around the time of Google), but from what I can tell, they started planning this in 1999. In both cases, they were delayed by encumbents like AT&T, Comcast and Cox cable. In the case of Lafayette, I think it was delayed by 3 or 4 years.

OK, so on the one hand, these fiber deployments happened before Google Fiber. I just was always under the impression Google was first, the new hot thing everyone wanted and was excited to see happening.

But on the other hand, planning starting in 1999 and deployments during the next 10 years doesn't so neatly fit the "1990s" descriptor I think.

The LUS Fiber story isn't exactly the way you make it sound, not that I think you are purposefully misrepresenting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber

In the late 1990s, the Lafayette Utilities System (the municipally owned utilities company) needed to upgrade its outdated microwave system for connecting their substations. LUS chose to upgrade with Fiber Optic technology. In 2002, after installing the system for their needs, they used the surplus fiber optic strands to provide wholesale service to hospitals, universities and the Lafayette Parish School System.

In 2003 during the campaign for City-Parish President, candidate Joey Durel expressed in a Chamber of Commerce debate with his opponent that he would not be in favor of LUS competing in the private sector. This statement was made on more than one occasion. However, once taking office, Joey Durel led the charge for a citywide fiber to the premise initiative. As he often said, "I begged the private sector to do it so that we wouldn't have to." With the incumbents refusing, local government was the only option.

LUS Fiber was initially an infrastructure project, they had additional Fiber so the used it to provide better services for some larger public sector users like hospitals and schools. When Joey Durel was electic he tried to get LUS to run endpoint residential fiber or what they were calling Fiber To The Home, (FTTH), the buisness sector refused so the turned it into a municipal project which started a legal battle the ends with a City winning and;

In 2007, Lafayette was finally able to start issuing bonds. Construction started in 2008 on the network, and the first customers were receiving service in February 2009.

• Kansas City, Kansas – On March 30, 2011, Kansas City, Kansas, was selected from over 1,100 applicants to be the first Google Fiber community.[4]
• Kansas City, Missouri – On May 17, 2011,[31] Google announced the decision to include Kansas City, Missouri, thus offering service to both sides of the state line. The network became available to residents in September 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber

So it looks official, and that you are correct, Google wasn't first.

 

[nilepez]

OK, so on the one hand, these fiber deployments happened before Google Fiber. I just was always under the impression Google was first, the new hot thing everyone wanted and was excited to see happening.

But on the other hand, planning starting in 1999 and deployments during the next 10 years doesn't so neatly fit the "1990s" descriptor I think.

The LUS Fiber story isn't exactly the way you make it sound, not that I think you are purposefully misrepresenting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber



LUS Fiber was initially an infrastructure project, they had additional Fiber so the used it to provide better services for some larger public sector users like hospitals and schools. When Joey Durel was electic he tried to get LUS to run endpoint residential fiber or what they were calling Fiber To The Home, (FTTH), the buisness sector refused so the turned it into a municipal project which started a legal battle the ends with a City winning and;



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber

So it looks official, and that you are correct, Google wasn't first.

To be clear I wasn't saying LUS started in the 90s. An article on Chattanooga referenced 1999. LUS started planing a roll out around the mid aughts. The encumbents objected. The citizens who objected were largely believed to be put up by AT&T and/or Cox and as I recall nobody actually knew who they were. Anyway, if not for those delay tactics, the roll out would have started 2 years earlier than it did.

Sadly, Cox joined some independent cable association (I think they're the 3rd largest cable provider) so that they could keep LUS from joining. This increased LUS's cost for video and I believe makes it harder for them to get some stations. But hey, they have symmetric internet connections, which is nice if you live there.

 

[Exavior]

In the grand scheme when you are spending $4 - 7 million on a building does $73,000 really matter at that point?

Verizon should point out the cheaper alternatives the fire department and or their architects are ignoring. It's silly to cause $75,000 worth of work to be done by a company and expect them to just absorb that cost.

You sir do not understand how the world works. As a employee of a telephone company. I can tell you that these type of things happen all the time. I work for a small company and we deal with at least 3 such cases a year. Here are two just from the last 4 month.

We had a city want to take all wires that were areal for two blocks and move them underground. So this was their thought, us and the power company could split the cost to tear up the pavement for 2 blocks, move our wires (ours was a 288 fiber that was our main trunk for the city) underground, then repave the alley. While doing this we were to put in duct work so that Comcast and Frontier (the local telephone company) could make us of that if they wanted to put anything down the alley at a later date to keep them underground also. Note that they wanted US to pay for all of that work and just absorb the cost. Both us and the power company said that we were not doing something like that at out of pocket, gave them a quote for the work they wanted done. They came back asking us to then just move our cables another 20 feet higher into the air, again at us just absorbing the cost. We both gave new quotes at which point they just decided that we were both being unreasonable and to just leave our stuff because they weren't going to pay us to do the work.

We are also dealing with a case similar to this. Us and a local power company are in what is currently a utility easement and where we were both told to go when a company built a lot of buildings. they have now purchased the property next to them and are putting a hotel right on top of where our main 48 fiber enters this location to feed all their various buildings. They want us and the power company to move all of our stuff and do it all for free. Every time we tell them that it will cost them they keep saying they will see if the board will approve them to pay or if they will tell them to make us do it for free. We are going to have run 1/4 mile of fiber and resplice all the buildings, but they don't see where that is their problem because now that they own more land they think that is a great location for their hotel so that isn't their problem that stuff is in the way. In this case moving the building over about 30 or 40 feet from where they have it planned to go would keep us from having to move anything.

 

[DocSavage]

In the grand scheme when you are spending $4 - 7 million on a building does $73,000 really matter at that point?



You sir do not understand how the world works. As a employee of a telephone company. I can tell you that these type of things happen all the time. I work for a small company and we deal with at least 3 such cases a year. Here are two just from the last 4 month.

We had a city want to take all wires that were areal for two blocks and move them underground. So this was their thought, us and the power company could split the cost to tear up the pavement for 2 blocks, move our wires (ours was a 288 fiber that was our main trunk for the city) underground, then repave the alley. While doing this we were to put in duct work so that Comcast and Frontier (the local telephone company) could make us of that if they wanted to put anything down the alley at a later date to keep them underground also. Note that they wanted US to pay for all of that work and just absorb the cost. Both us and the power company said that we were not doing something like that at out of pocket, gave them a quote for the work they wanted done. They came back asking us to then just move our cables another 20 feet higher into the air, again at us just absorbing the cost. We both gave new quotes at which point they just decided that we were both being unreasonable and to just leave our stuff because they weren't going to pay us to do the work.

We are also dealing with a case similar to this. Us and a local power company are in what is currently a utility easement and where we were both told to go when a company built a lot of buildings. they have now purchased the property next to them and are putting a hotel right on top of where our main 48 fiber enters this location to feed all their various buildings. They want us and the power company to move all of our stuff and do it all for free. Every time we tell them that it will cost them they keep saying they will see if the board will approve them to pay or if they will tell them to make us do it for free. We are going to have run 1/4 mile of fiber and resplice all the buildings, but they don't see where that is their problem because now that they own more land they think that is a great location for their hotel so that isn't their problem that stuff is in the way. In this case moving the building over about 30 or 40 feet from where they have it planned to go would keep us from having to move anything.

I had no idea this was that common. So your company regularly loses cases like this, or are you saying that customer's often have unreasonable demands?

 

[Exavior]

I had no idea this was that common. So your company regularly loses cases like this?

Nothing on this scale no. I can only think of one case were we had to eat a cost about this. About 10 years ago a road was being made from 2 lanes into 3. It was a US Highway & State road so there was no demanding payment. That just was the government saying that for the next 2.5 miles if your stuff is in our way you better move it as your easement is no longer where it was. That was probably about $75,000 that we just had to absorb.

For us, most of our cases where we have to fight somebody wanting stuff moved it is stuff more to the scale of a $10,000 or less. Which depending on the cases sometimes we do get the people to pay and in others we just eat the cost. Again in the 4 month time frame, had a church adding a new exit to the parking lot and decided that a great spot would be right in the middle of one of our poles. So they at first tried asking us nicely to move our pole 10 feet over so that they could put their exit there. We gave them a quote for us to move it, they asked if they were really going to have to pay vs us just doing it, we told them yes they had to pay and they said that was fine then as that is where they wanted the exit so if they had to pay then they would pay. Which that wouldn't have been that extreme of a cost. However normally when you involve anything municipal, they think they should get everything done for free or nearly free. A few years back we had a city want us to move some cable, we quoted them like $6000. They told us that we were trying to rip them off. They got 3 quotes from contractors all between $10,000 and $15,000. Came back to us and said for us to do the work. After it was done said they gave it more thought at their next meeting and didn't think they should pay us after all because we were the ones that they paid to put the fiber in 15 years ago and so us moving it should just be something that we do.

Overall as far as if we win or lose, or I should say if we get paid or just have to eat the cost normally depends on who the other side is. When it is the state or federal government normally you just end up doing what they say and deal with it. For cities and counties it depends on what the case is, normally they are good at paying for work they ask to have done but in some cases they don't think that they should pay and will just tell you that you are going to do something. When that happens you can push back some but if you don't just do the work they are going to do what they want and destroy your stuff if it is in the way, so you give in. For individuals, most of the time we are going to win those otherwise we aren't going to do that work. And if they cut or damage something then they are going to be getting a bill for that and taken to court if they refuse to pay. Little easier to sue John Smith for cutting a cable in his yard because he wanted to put a fence where you cable is and you told him that you wouldn't move it without a fee and he decided he is putting that fence there anyway, than it is to sue a city because you didn't move 2 poles in the way of a new turning lane being built so they tore them out when putting the lane in.

However yes, in general of people asking for stuff to be moved they normally just assume that the utility company is going to move it for free or should be willing to move it for free as they just assume that is "the cost of doing business" is a common thing that they deal with. Or at the very least in my area it seems to be something that we deal with a good amount, so I can only imagine that if we see it as much as we do both in areas that we are the local telephone company and in areas that we are going into a town / city serviced by somebody else and doing fiber builds to areas that it can't be that uncommon for all areas.

 

[Nobified[H]]

Greed will only take you so far! Volunteer firefighters are something you do not want to mess with. They are always laying their lives on the line, can we say the same about Verizon? This is where common sense comes in and knowing when to employ it. A strike out for Verizon!

 

[Darunion]

Greed will only take you so far! Volunteer firefighters are something you do not want to mess with. They are always laying their lives on the line, can we say the same about Verizon? This is where common sense comes in and knowing when to employ it. A strike out for Verizon!

That doesn't mean they get whatever they want for free either. Or maybe verizon should just make the workers that have to move the cable all work for free so they can cut down some of the price for them. Seems fair.

 

[Azphira]

I'll side with the firefighters since Verizon is a company that makes money off of artificial scarcity.

 

[0neTwo]

Greed will only take you so far! Volunteer firefighters are something you do not want to mess with. They are always laying their lives on the line, can we say the same about Verizon? This is where common sense comes in and knowing when to employ it. A strike out for Verizon!

If you expect something for free in return, that sort of goes against the whole "volunteer" thing...

 

[Nobified[H]]

That doesn't mean they get whatever they want for free either. Or maybe verizon should just make the workers that have to move the cable all work for free so they can cut down some of the price for them. Seems fair.

I get it, let focus on the word "volunteer". This wording changes everything in my opinion. No greater love is shown when a person is willing to lay their life down for others. Something to think about.

 

[Nobified[H]]

If you expect something for free in return, that sort of goes against the whole "volunteer" thing...

You are missing the point. Volunteers willing to lay their lives for others. This was an opportunity to expand Verizon's business and good free publicity.

 

[0neTwo]

You are missing the point. Volunteers willing to lay their lives for others. This was an opportunity to expand Verizon's business and good free publicity.

No, you are missing the point. Verizon, or any other company owes them NOTHING for free. Should they never have to pay for anything in their lives? That sounds like a good paying job

 

[Nobified[H]]

No, you are missing the point. Verizon, or any other company owes them NOTHING for free. Should they never have to pay for anything in their lives? That sounds like a good paying job

That is cool with me, I will say T-mobile will win some business. When verizon business is burning down, volunteer firefighters owe them nothing. It goes both ways and I am all for capitalistic. Just saying, employ some common sense.


Same logic can be applied to returning veterans and wounded veterans. All of them are a volunteer force with pay, can you really put a price on a soldier's life that bleed for us all? Kinda goofy to use the same logic verizon has that they owe nothing to no one.


I am for taking care of veterans and wounded veterans and do not share the logic of fuck everyone it is my money!

 

[0neTwo]

That is cool with me, I will say T-mobile will win some business. When verizon business is burning down, volunteer firefighters owe them nothing. It goes both ways and I am all for capitalistic. Just saying, employ some common sense.


Same logic can be applied to returning veterans and wounded veterans. All of them are a volunteer force with pay, can you really put a price on a soldier's life that bleed for us all? Kinda goofy to use the same logic verizon has that they owe nothing to no one.


I am for taking care of veterans and wounded veterans and do not share the logic of fuck everyone it is my money!

Most volunteer firefighters/emt's use their own vehicles for their (volunteered) job.
Is it Fords job to give out free F150's? That would be some good press right?
What about the gas they use? Texaco should give that out for free, good press right?
What about the insurance? Progressive needs to pay for that...for the good press.
...etc..etc. If they have to pay for any goods or service anywhere, then that company deserves to burn with no help.

Firefighters put out fires...that's sort of the job. Verizon installs communication hardware...that's sort of their job. Notice how Verizon is a business to make money and doesn't have "volunteer" anywhere on their sign.

Just saying, employ some common sense.

 

[Nobified[H]]

Most volunteer firefighters/emt's use their own vehicles for their (volunteered) job.
Is it Fords job to give out free F150's? That would be some good press right?
What about the gas they use? Texaco should give that out for free, good press right?
What about the insurance? Progressive needs to pay for that...for the good press.
...etc..etc. If they have to pay for any goods or service anywhere, then that company deserves to burn with no help.

Firefighters put out fires...that's sort of the job. Verizon installs communication hardware...that's sort of their job. Notice how Verizon is a business to make money and doesn't have "volunteer" anywhere on their sign.

Just saying, employ some common sense.

You reaching with all the other statements regarding ford, insurance and gas. We all pay our own bills.


Verizon can do whatever they want or charge whatever they want. They are not forcing anyone to pay to them directly. If there is a bill for $73k and someone is willing to pay Verizon's asking price. There is nothing else I can say.

We will agree to disagree. Thanks for the different viewpoints.

 

[Exavior]

Most volunteer firefighters/emt's use their own vehicles for their (volunteered) job.
Is it Fords job to give out free F150's? That would be some good press right?
What about the gas they use? Texaco should give that out for free, good press right?
What about the insurance? Progressive needs to pay for that...for the good press.
...etc..etc. If they have to pay for any goods or service anywhere, then that company deserves to burn with no help.

Firefighters put out fires...that's sort of the job. Verizon installs communication hardware...that's sort of their job. Notice how Verizon is a business to make money and doesn't have "volunteer" anywhere on their sign.

Just saying, employ some common sense.

plus they had to buy the land, it wasn't just given to them. Then since that land was a wetland they had to pay for mitigation of wetland. Then they had to pay $4 million for the building, that company didn't just do the work for free. You don't see people bitching that they should have done the work for free to make the life saving building.

the issue is that people love to hate certain companies or types of companies so they will never just use common sense.

 

[Nobified[H]]

*Notice to myself* refuse CPR to certain people. <----this logic is moronic Yet this same logic is applied everywhere. People hearts are getting colder everyday. I am not surprised.

 

[Exavior]

*Notice to myself* refuse CPR to certain people. <----this logic is moronic Yet this same logic is applied everywhere. People hearts are getting colder everyday. I am not surprised.

CPR isn't always legal anyway.

 

[Nobified[H]]

CPR isn't always legal anyway.

Are you a lawyer? This logic would explain your disconnect?

 

[M76]

WTF?

asked us to use the most expensive option for doing so

I don't think that ever happened in the history of mankind.

 

[nilepez]

That is cool with me, I will say T-mobile will win some business. When verizon business is burning down, volunteer firefighters owe them nothing. It goes both ways and I am all for capitalistic. Just saying, employ some common sense.


Same logic can be applied to returning veterans and wounded veterans. All of them are a volunteer force with pay, can you really put a price on a soldier's life that bleed for us all? Kinda goofy to use the same logic verizon has that they owe nothing to no one.


I am for taking care of veterans and wounded veterans and do not share the logic of fuck everyone it is my money!

T-Mobile is a wireless provider. This is Verizon, not Verizon Wireless. Completely different business (albeit within the same corporation), so No, T-Mobile isn't going to pick up business from Verizon. And frankly, Verizon is not wrong on this one. You want to move cables, dig up a street and so on, it costs money. Frankly, I'm not sure why the city isn't picking up the bill.

 

[nilepez]

WTF?
I don't think that ever happened in the history of mankind.

If you walk into an AV store and say, I'd like that 77" LG set, don't get pissed when it costs 20k. There are cheaper LG sets and much cheaper 4k TVs available.
The fire department asked for the lines to be moved and kept underground (the most expensive option).

There are so many times Telecom providers are in the wrong, but this isn't one of them.

 

[M76]

If you walk into an AV store and say, I'd like that 77" LG set, don't get pissed when it costs 20k. There are cheaper LG sets and much cheaper 4k TVs available.
The fire department asked for the lines to be moved and kept underground (the most expensive option).

There are so many times Telecom providers are in the wrong, but this isn't one of them.

No what I was getting at. IS that noone asks for the most expensive option specifically. They will ask for the best option. That might be the most expensive option as well, but this wording "they asked for the most expensive option" in a press release is beyond strange to me. Maybe they were scrambling to put the fire out, but this just makes it sound like there is some back room deal going on between them.

 

[nilepez]

No what I was getting at. IS that noone asks for the most expensive option specifically. They will ask for the best option. That might be the most expensive option as well, but this wording "they asked for the most expensive option" in a press release is beyond strange to me. Maybe they were scrambling to put the fire out, but this just makes it sound like there is some back room deal going on between them.

Look I can only speak for myself, but it was pretty obvious to me that what the Verizon spokesman meant was they asked for the wires to be moved in a specific way which happens to be the most expensive way to do it.

HIs statement to [H] was almost identical to what he said in the article that Steve linked to the day before this was posted.

 

[0neTwo]

Look I can only speak for myself, but it was pretty obvious to me that what the Verizon spokesman meant was they asked for the wires to be moved in a specific way which happens to be the most expensive way to do it.

HIs statement to [H] was almost identical to what he said in the article that Steve linked to the day before this was posted.

Yep. I doubt they said "Charge us as much as you can." Just that of the options they were given, they chose the most expensive one.

 

[M76]

but it was pretty obvious to me that what the Verizon spokesman meant was they asked for the wires to be moved in a specific way

It might be the case, but he didn't say that. It's not so obvious to me. Why would you say A when you mean B? There is a very important distinction between asking for a specific method, and asking for the most expensive method. That's why wording is very important here. But as I already said they might just have messed up the statement in scrambling to get it out asap. I'm not saying there is necessarily foul play going on.

It's like the waiter saying "He asked for the most expensive meal" Wouldn't you say that's strange?

 

[Azphira]

Claim imminent domain, fine Verizon 73k a day until they remove the wires.

 

[Nobified[H]]

Anyways, allow me to efficiently summarize this topic quickly as I can before I am given the boot.

There was a time when Corporations were illegal unless it benefitted the public's needs. John D Rockefeller, who I will label as an evil soulless capitalist with global ambitions to dominate. If it wasn't for Theodore Roosevelt to break up the monopolies. It pisses me off that rich people live off the blood of patriots with no regard for the lives laid down to defend the Constitution. It is those same rich people that do deals to undermine the Constitution themselves. Corporations push the idea of convincing Congress to allow them to abuse the HB-1 Visa. Ultimately in the end, Corporations push for global agenda to ship jobs to slave wage nations and import the products back into the USA. The American people and soldiers that defend the Constitution are the loser in every way while our society is being corrupted with the Corporate mindset. Please for our country's sake, wake up!

Corporate powers need to be reigned in to once again benefit the public.


Now you understand, simply because history is for all to find the truth. Please learn the truth and let's take our country back.


Don't get me wrong Verizon is the same asshole as T-Mobile....only T-Mobile is trying to gain more subscribers.

My money, my land, my ambitions to expand, my product, my government to do my bidding and people are nothing but numbers to help me achieve the lusts of my heart.<-----Corporate Mindset


This is why I refuse to work for any corporation, If I was given power....I would destroy the corporate mindset and make it about people.

People are the most valuable than anything on earth. <---if people understood this....


My [H] sisters and brothers, I will always tell you the truth.

 

[Exavior]

Are you a lawyer? This logic would explain your disconnect?

No, I just know that people have gotten sued due to somebody having a DNR and somebody gave them CPR not knowing that. My comment was meant as a joke anyway since you were saying that you wanted some people in this thread to die.

No what I was getting at. IS that noone asks for the most expensive option specifically. They will ask for the best option. That might be the most expensive option as well, but this wording "they asked for the most expensive option" in a press release is beyond strange to me. Maybe they were scrambling to put the fire out, but this just makes it sound like there is some back room deal going on between them.

It is a matter of how you want to twist the words. If you want you can twist them to mean all different types of things depending on how biased or neutral your viewpoint is. Also matters if English is your first language or not. If you say that you went out to eat with somebody and they ordered the most expensive item on the menu, you don't normally mean that they actually asked the waiter / waitress to bring them the most expensive item on the menu. You normally mean that in the item that they selected happen to be the most expensive item. So it is reasonable here to assume the same meaning of the option they selected happen to be the most expensive one.

Look I can only speak for myself, but it was pretty obvious to me that what the Verizon spokesman meant was they asked for the wires to be moved in a specific way which happens to be the most expensive way to do it.

HIs statement to [H] was almost identical to what he said in the article that Steve linked to the day before this was posted.

I took his statement in the same way. They were asked to do X, to which it sounds like Verizon gave a few other solutions to the issue and that was responded to with a no we want X, however X happened to be the most expensive one. Which without knowing the specifics can't say for sure what the other options where and to what degree they were cheaper. Plowed buried cables vs new poles & aerial would probably be about the same cost and would take a crew about 1 day to get the 1000 feet of cable in if they could plow it all at once. Bored would be 2.5 or maybe 3 days. So it depends on how deep they need to go and through what. But even then I wouldn't expect the labor of getting the cable in to be the most expensive part. Probably has to do with the cable and the work needed to move a major trunk. Giving it some thought I almost wonder if it might have to do with outage time. I could see there being an option where people have no service for a day while they cut everything and resplice it, but I could see a method being wanted where there is as little of an outage as possible which would take more time as far more prep work would be needed then.