FCC urged to investigate Verizon’s statements on utility rules

129 点作者 jconley超过 10 年前

9 条评论

DannyBee超过 10 年前

So, a lot of folks are missing the point, which is that the investigation asks for perjury charges.Verizon swears up and down in FCC filings it is not a title II common carrier FOR THE FIBER LINES (it always has been for PSTN). But in it's statements to state regulatory commissions and it's franchise agreement with states/municipalities state specifically that it is upgrading/building THE FIBER LINES under Title II.This is because Title II allows them to do so without getting further permission/process from the state.You can't tell the FCC one thing, and state regulatory agencies the other.The rest of this filing should have been removed. Press statements/etc are pretty much irrelevant, and they should stick to the simple facts. Anything else will just be fodder for arguing over when it doesn't matter.For those wondering about perjury, there are a number of federal perjury statutes (the most general that i'm aware of being 18 USC 1621, <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621</a>).If you tell the federal government something, and it includes the words "I declare under penalty of perjury, ....", and you are knowingly misrepresenting something in that document, you have committed a felony.(In the case of tax returns, it's at least two felonies, since there is also a specific tax return perjury statute, and in either case it doesn't matter whether you owe the IRS money or not)

评论 #8885835 未加载

xnull1guest超过 10 年前

The Net Neutrality 'debate' is an example of politics I'm beginning to see all the time in the United States. A real problem is presented along with a single problematic solution from which voters, with as much or little influence they actually have, and their representatives are asked to select the 'lesser of two evils'.The real discussion is not whether the country's big media duopoly should be forced to conduct their business model like a public utility or not, but whether a duopoly is healthy at all. If communication infrastructure requires few large investors and centralized ownership it is a natural monopoly and should be managed as such (and in fact resold on a market of small service providers a la the UK's internet and American power). If it does not, let anti-trust law hammers fall. Comcast and Time Warner consistently collect the very worst consumer reviews (Comcast was the worst of all corporations for year running). They are both larger and more predatory than Ma Bell was leading up to 1984.

评论 #8882257 未加载

评论 #8882229 未加载

evanpw超过 10 年前

It seems like the issue is that regulated utilities are not really private companies, though we like to pretend they are. The segment of Verizon that provides voice service is effectively a government agency, and if they make money, the rest of the company is not allowed to use it for something else. I'm a pretty free-market guy, but this seems worse than having phone service just be publicly run. This is the worst of both worlds.

datashovel超过 10 年前

Abraham Lincoln was not just a great president, but could probably be considered a psychic in many circles:“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

评论 #8883520 未加载

评论 #8883182 未加载

adwf超过 10 年前

I mentioned the same thing the other day [1]. I don't quite get why telecoms providers who are running ISP services over their lines are not already regulated by the same standard. A phone call is an analogue audio message sent over phone lines - guaranteed transit. An early modem was also an analogue audio message sent over phone lines - guaranteed transit. Nowadays, we simplify a few phases and have pure digital IP telephony and internet access - not so guaranteed. But it's still the same thing...[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8857793" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8857793</a>

higherpurpose超过 10 年前

They should do the same with AT&T:<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150108/10422129635/att-plays-legal-pattycake-with-ftcfcc-jurisdiction-common-carrier-law-just-so-it-can-pretend-limited-data-service-is-unlimited.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015010...</a>

superbaconman超过 10 年前

I for one think we should put this off for another 5 years minimum. I've been seeing lots of little guys pop up around my area, and I know network equipment is about to get a lot better. I'd rather pay more for my internet than fuck up an entire tech sector.

评论 #8884191 未加载

forrestthewoods超过 10 年前

But those aren't contradictory statements at all? Title II let Verizon charge more for phone service which was used to fund broadband. Verizon also says that Title II for broadband would harm additional investment for broadband. Both statements can easily be true. (emphasis can) There's nothing "red-handed" about this.

评论 #8881888 未加载

评论 #8881727 未加载

rayiner超过 10 年前

Unsurprisingly, it's Bruce Kushnick that's doing the urging: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=kushnick&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=&gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&q=kushnick+rayiner+site:news.ycombinator.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=kushnick&sourceid=ie7&rls=co...</a>. [1]The irony of the article is that it's kind of right in a way that really undermines the whole premise of the argument. Suppose that Verizon did use "Title II money" (i.e. revenues from rate increases on wireline subscribers) to fund FiOS deployment. That may very well not be kosher according to the rules, but that just goes to show that the rules are ridiculous. Should we launch a federal investigation to see if Apple subsidized iPhone development by increasing Mac prices?I like Ars, but they've been beating an anti-telco trumpet recently that's totally detached from reality. Ars paints telecom service as this cash cow, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in the U.S. is making money on fiber on deployments of any substantial scale. It's not clear that Verizon is even earning a positive return on the thousands of dollars per household it has invested in FiOS in many markets: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221046109606.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b42210461...</a> (In the PNW: "He estimates the project will end up having cost Verizon $4,000 per connected home. Moffett calculates the present value of acquired subscribers at $3,200 each. That would give FiOS a negative $800 net present value per customer.")Wall Street wants Verizon to get out of the wireline business entirely, and it's precisely because there's little return on the billions in required investments, coupled with the regulatory swamp that is Title II.[1] Kushnick's whole shtick is that there's some rate that's okay for a telecom carrier to charge, and any price increase beyond that rate is a "subsidy" from the public to the carrier. Hence, Verizon raising rates on its own customers to pay for its fiber network is some sort of questionable act. Applying Kushnick logic to another industry: if Apple raises prices on Macs and uses that cash to bankroll iPhone development, well that's something that requires a federal investigation.