Yes, it is tax season yet again and you probably paid more taxes than Verizon NY. (NOTE: Verizon's other incumbent phone companies are using the same 'questionable' financial book keeping, but their accounting is not public.)
This plan's advertised price cost is $10.00 and yet the actual costs to the customer are $32.00, hiding a whopping 220% above this advertised price. Is this 'fair and reasonable'? Is this deceptive advertising? Where are the savings for buying this 'slim package'?
Net Neutrality itself doesn't solve America's communications problems and we hope that the FCC decides to actually investigate our claims that a) Verizon failed to disclose that the networks are already Title II.
You can never, ever get the advertised price because it doesn't include many of the fixed costs, like the set top box, not to mention it is littered with pass-throughs of the company's taxes and fees, including the cable franchise fees.
Let us be clear. You pay a local service bill. It has charges on it that you must pay and you can't get service without it. If Verizon doesn't want to count these charges, then why shouldn't the customer have the right to not pay what's not being counted?
Thomas Wheeler is the heir apparent to the departing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. From 1992 through 2004, Tom Wheeler was president and CEO of the Cellular Telecom and Internet Association. If Wheeler is nominated he would have to take on his previous clients.
Shouldn't we get to choose who offers us Internet or broadband or cable programming services over the wires we've helped to upgrade? And if there's no serious competition, shouldn't the cable companies' prices for cable services be regulated again?