Verizon's Screwing New Jersey Even Harder Than Previously Believed
from the regulatory-capture dept
We've previously discussed how in 1993 Verizon conned the state of New Jersey into giving the telco all manner of subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for a promise to wire the majority of the state with symmetrical fiber. Fast forward to 2015, most of New Jersey remains on aging DSL, and the state decided it would be a wonderful idea to simply let Verizon walk away from its obligations. Of course this isn't new: Verizon's regulatory capture allowed it to do the exact same thing in Pennsylvania, and it's currently busy trying to dodge New York City FiOS build out requirements as well.But apparently, New Jersey is getting screwed harder than state residents even knew. In addition to the sham 1993 agreement, Verizon got New Jersey officials to sign off on a 2006 statewide franchise agreement that also let the company wiggle out of FiOS deployment obligations. Essentially, Newark and Fulop Mayors began noticing that many buildings in their cities were waiving their right to have FiOS installed, something not happening in more affluent areas:
"Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City and Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark are expected to call a press conference to discuss whether Verizon is fulfilling its obligations under the act. Public records show that 21,392 different properties in Newark have waived their access rights under the franchise agreement, opting out of any right to FiOS availability. In Jersey City, that number climbed to 25,311, nearly a fifth of the city’s properties. In richer municipalities like Trenton, Weehawken, and Hackensack, that number never climbed above 3,000."Verizon's 2006 franchise agreement required that the telco make its fiber-based FiOS service available to New Jersey's 70 densest municipalities, including poor areas in Newark and Jersey City that might not otherwise see coverage. But Verizon appears to be abusing a loophole in the franchise agreement that allows it to add buildings to an acceptable "waiver" list of exemptions should Verizon run into trouble during installs. But Verizon appears to be making it intentionally difficult for landlords in poorer cities to successfully contact and schedule installs with Verizon:
"What we understand the practice to be is that, if you're in a wealthy high-rise next to the water in Jersey City, they will bend over backwards trying to get into that building," says Seth Hahn of the Communication Workers of America union, which has supported the mayors in their efforts to get more cable laid. "But if you live on the other end of the tracks, they'll send you a letter saying, 'We'd like access to your building.’" After a labyrinth of phone calls and offerings, the landlord will often end up on a waiver list without realizing it, Hahn says."None of this is to say landlords can't be difficult. In a 2013 PSC filing with the state of New York (pdf), Verizon claims many landlords refused the telco access to building infrastructure, and some even tried to charge the telco for building access. But looking at the data, it seems somewhat obvious that there's a big discrepancy among waiver totals in poorer cities:
But the core of this problem is again regulatory capture and these statewide TV franchise agreements. The new laws were pushed by AT&T and Verizon in dozens of states around ten years ago, and were quickly rammed through by campaign-cash soaked state legislatures under the promise of new jobs and lower TV prices thanks to increased competition. But most if not all of the agreements were written by telco lobbyists and lawyers. As such, most of them are basically phone company wishlists, and in some places like Wisconsin, went so far as to gut all consumer protections and even some eminent domain rights.
So yeah, if you didn't realize it already companies like AT&T and Verizon all but own many state legislatures, as evident by the fact they literally write the laws governing their behavior. The end result of that may not be surprising, but the fact that we never seem to learn from decades of this kind of behavior should be.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fiber, fios, fulsop, loopholes, new jersey, newark, poor, waivers
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does Your Pseudo-Populism in last paragraph apply to every corporation, especially Google?
All you need to know whether any corporation is so corrupt as ingenuity allows is simply that it's a corporation. Morality or other human good doesn't apply to legal fictions. It's completely stupid to assume that your individual morality applies to corporations which are created solely to escape morality: the "Limited Liability" means only money losses are possible for anything the corporations does (observably true), no moral sanctions let alone prison time will be applied to the individuals who do the acts.
You cannot pick and choose among corporations any more than you can among wasps. Their predatory nature is fixed and definitely outside your control. Government is supposed to keep them under control. The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust, so that executives live in fear, rather than we the people. You "libertarians" have helped neo-cons loose amoral and immortal beasts and results are entirely predictable.
Now, you'll ALL agree with that, but two minutes later, be back to thinking Google (or whatever corporation) is your friend! You've been thoroughly indoctrinated with corporatism and you too have been captured by it.
Attempt #5. If able to compete on even basis (including not having my posts hidden), I'd totally run this site! Thanks for making it a challenge, kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Your Pseudo-Populism in last paragraph apply to every corporation, especially Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Your Pseudo-Populism in last paragraph apply to every corporation, especially Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does Your Pseudo-Populism in last paragraph apply to every corporation, especially Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust," AND HOWEVER HEAVY OF TAXATION IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM SMALL, ...
Tried to reply two minutes after without exiting program and that was blocked! So don't tell me that it's just a matter of getting a cookie or the IPA known. It's active censorship.
Attempt #13 on this! Seems the blocking be upped to okaying each comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust," AND HOWEVER HEAVY OF TAXATION IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM SMALL, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust," AND HOWEVER HEAVY OF TAXATION IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM SMALL, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust," AND HOWEVER HEAVY OF TAXATION IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM SMALL, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "The only rational policy is to advocate constant heavy anti-trust," AND HOWEVER HEAVY OF TAXATION IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM SMALL, ...
Yours, on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i doubt we want to. pays much better not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempt #1 - no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OH GOD NO!
Robo-Masnic has awoken! His fury shall rain down upon us like a drunken bus driver. HEAVE TO! Run to the hills my breathers. Take wing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "Honestly, why do you even come here?" I've answered this before: TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
I've also said that this is a vice, like teasing feeble-minded barking rats.
In any case, don't worry how I spend my time. Justify your own interest, smarty-pants.
And what a vice! Attempt #4 just to snark back at an AC! If I had any brains, I'd cut the cable literally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Honestly, why do you even come here?" I've answered this before: TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Honestly, why do you even come here?" I've answered this before: TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Honestly, why do you even come here?" I've answered this before: TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Honestly, why do you even come here?" I've answered this before: TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TECHDIRT, IT'S WHERE THE WRONGNESS IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New World Odor
hmmmm.... not sure, but isn't;
Corporations writing the laws that govern their own behavior
pretty much the working definition of fascism??
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]