FCC Urged To Investigate Verizon’s “Two-Faced” Statements

You know the FCC has to be thinking "which ones?"

Verizon has repeatedly claimed that utility rules would harm investment in broadband networks, urging the Federal Communications Commission to avoid imposing new regulations. Yet Verizon’s statements to the FCC have avoided mentioning that its own utility-style common carrier status helped the company charge landline phone customers higher prices to fund construction of the fiber network over which it provides FiOS Internet and TV.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's fascinating. Verizon takes money from gov and customers under Title 2 classification, builds their fiber infrastrcuture, then turns around the tells the FCC Title 2 classification - that they have been using - would be bad for infrastructure deployment. Wut?

The more interesting snippet imho was the part about mandating line sharing. That would be the best fix to our infrastructure woes, worked great in pretty much every single other area doing that.

If I remember correctly, Verizon was switching parts of NY and NJ over to fiber and kicking out 3rd party ISPs saying it was Verizon fiber. If this is the case, and they used Title II money to pay for it, it's a public utility and other companies can pay to use it.

What's there to understand, this is just standard politics. They are spreading doubt and disinformation so that in a few years there at least a minuscule % of the population raising pitchforks in defense on Verizon's actions. I mean look at what's happened with net neutrality. At least 5% of forum users on this very site actively argue against it, using all the talking points fed to them from the smear campaign started by organizations like Verizon a year ago. If you have ever stopped to wonder how someone could vote against their own (and everyone elses) best interests, you need look no further than moments like this. It always has a beginning, and there's always some hook that catches a few easily manipulable people and presto, stand back and watch your work grow.

az_max said:

If I remember correctly, Verizon was switching parts of NY and NJ over to fiber and kicking out 3rd party ISPs saying it was Verizon fiber. If this is the case, and they used Title II money to pay for it, it's a public utility and other companies can pay to use it.

Click to expand...

That depends on the laws of the area. The copper telephone line is part of the public utility, but in most areas you are not allowed to select a provider, you have to use the one which owns the monopoly in that area.

Wierdo said:

Yeah it's fascinating. Verizon takes money from gov and customers under Title 2 classification, builds their fiber infrastrcuture, then turns around the tells the FCC Title 2 classification - that they have been using - would be bad for infrastructure deployment. Wut?

Click to expand...

The money went into a general pool from which the expenses came. Saying the money was used to pay for the infrastructure implies it was taken from the payments of the customers and placed directly into infrastructure improvements.

It would be like saying the social security tax pays for drone attacks.

As an aside, did you know that President Obama has killed more civilians in drone attacks than all the other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined?

Making two faced statements isn't illegal unless they do it on their earnings statements, and that is an issue for the SEC, not the FCC ... I'm not sure what they can investigate

cybrsage said:

The money went into a general pool from which the expenses came. Saying the money was used to pay for the infrastructure implies it was taken from the payments of the customers and placed directly into infrastructure improvements.

Click to expand...

From article:

"However, this is in direct contradiction to Verizon’s own filings, statements, SEC and state-based filings, the companies’ cable franchise agreement—every fiber optic wire appears to be Title II." That includes fiber lines used to deliver home Internet service and the fiber lines that feed into Verizon Wireless' cell towers, Kushnick and Allibone wrote. Kushnick pointed to a 2012 statement by Verizon CFO Fran Shammo that wireline capital dollars were paying for wireless expansion.
...
“In every document we went through there is no mention whatsoever that Title II is the foundation of their investment in fiber optics.” Verizon claims that “Title II harms investment,” Kushnick noted. “Well, no, Title II is the basis of their investment.”

Click to expand...

kbrickley said:

Making two faced statements isn't illegal unless they do it on their earnings statements, and that is an issue for the SEC, not the FCC ... I'm not sure what they can investigate

Click to expand...

Would make for strong political ammo though probably. I'm guessing that's the intention.