Proposed law targets Verizon, which didn't pay tax levied by two New Jersey towns.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Verizon stiffed towns on millions in taxes, but might have to pay it back
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Can they, though? I know Verizon has been quite the den of arrogant twats for quite a while, but the wireless market has been pretty competitive since Legere started running T-mobile. Even Verizon was brought kicking and screaming back into unlimited data plans.
Upvote
41
(47
/
-6)
They have a wired business though. Wire wireline business there are often few if any competitors. I am in a unique area where I have Verizon FIOS and Comcast as options.
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
The NJ municipalities should take a page from the playbooks of corporations such as Verizon and just nickel and dime Verizon out the ass for access to phone lines, land, etc.
"Well, if you had just paid your taxes and not tried to be a bunch of fucking weasels, we wouldn't have to do this. So instead, here are the daily access fees, land fees, stadium fees, fee processing fees..."
"Well, if you had just paid your taxes and not tried to be a bunch of fucking weasels, we wouldn't have to do this. So instead, here are the daily access fees, land fees, stadium fees, fee processing fees..."
Upvote
149
(152
/
-3)
So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.
However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).
However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).
Upvote
42
(53
/
-11)
Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.
Upvote
102
(104
/
-2)
Ex post facto restrictions are only applied to criminal law, at least as far as I know. For a civil matter like tax liability that isn't the case.
Upvote
63
(63
/
0)
So very Trumpian of Verizon. Stiff your creditors, lie about the reasons, and say, "So sue me. I've got more lawyers than you do."
Upvote
63
(78
/
-15)
Well, no. Verizon also miscounted 10k phone lines as part of the tax base when they weren't. And when notified of this mistake, they lawyered up instead of just paying the tax they owed.
Upvote
139
(139
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
They didn't take advantage of a loophole they BLATANTLY LIED ABOUT HOW MANY USERS THEY HAD.
Upvote
127
(132
/
-5)
It should still be done. Doesn't matter, they can't claim to be people and pay no taxes without any repercussion.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
You answered the question I was thinking.
My sentiments on this entire matter (provided the law passes) are as follows: good.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
"dial tone and access to 51 percent of a local telephone exchange."
Now, I will start by pointing out this is an out-of-context snippet of the law, and so I don't know for sure whether other details in the legislation would contradict what I'm about to say, but:
It seems to me that perhaps Verizon has a point based on the language used.
After all, it's 51-percent of a "local telephone exchange", which doesn't necessarily mean 51 percent of subscribers within Hopewell city limits, if the local exchange is shared with neighboring townships, villages, cities, etc.
Now, that said, I presume the judge in the case would have taken that into account if that were actually the case, so I suppose probably something in the law makes what I said not valid.
The other thing I wonder about, these days - accounting for these percentages must be starting to get pretty complex - because now in addition to copper telephone lines, within a local exchange, you have VOiP lines from cable/fiber services, you might have a VOiP company selling VOiP services using the local exchange numbers, but the customers they are providing service to may be anywhere in the world and move frequently, you have mobile-phone numbers, etc.
It's got to be quite a nightmare to account for all that.
Now, I will start by pointing out this is an out-of-context snippet of the law, and so I don't know for sure whether other details in the legislation would contradict what I'm about to say, but:
It seems to me that perhaps Verizon has a point based on the language used.
After all, it's 51-percent of a "local telephone exchange", which doesn't necessarily mean 51 percent of subscribers within Hopewell city limits, if the local exchange is shared with neighboring townships, villages, cities, etc.
Now, that said, I presume the judge in the case would have taken that into account if that were actually the case, so I suppose probably something in the law makes what I said not valid.
The other thing I wonder about, these days - accounting for these percentages must be starting to get pretty complex - because now in addition to copper telephone lines, within a local exchange, you have VOiP lines from cable/fiber services, you might have a VOiP company selling VOiP services using the local exchange numbers, but the customers they are providing service to may be anywhere in the world and move frequently, you have mobile-phone numbers, etc.
It's got to be quite a nightmare to account for all that.
Upvote
18
(23
/
-5)
It sounds to me, with language 'local telephone exchange', it's speaking strictly about POTS, copper telephone line. I am not sure they can count VoIP and other physical data infrastructure into their count.
Maybe there are other language amendments in the revised bill? That would take some creative accounting to get around, too.
Granted, Verizon has been letting the POTS stuff rot in the ground, so maybe if they pay the taxes, the municipalities can 'take ownership' and repair some of it? Then again, with the property taxes, I'm sure they have some kind of agreement for repair and maintenance for the equipment itself....
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Upvote
16
(28
/
-12)
Well, that goes right along with decades of taking government dollars and doing **** all with it beyond padding executive salaries.
Government Handouts -- they're only wrong if you're giving them to poor people.
Government Handouts -- they're only wrong if you're giving them to poor people.
Upvote
43
(45
/
-2)
Blatantly lying on your taxes is a crime, if you're one of the little people. If you're sufficiently rich or a corporation, that doesn't really apply to you, unless the government needs to placate the plebes.
EDIT: dorkbert is strong in ninjutsu. Believe it!
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
I don't know specifically about this case, but in general, yes, it *is* Verizon's fault (and AT&T's / T-Mobile's / Comcast's / etc.) that we have bad laws regulating telecoms, from the local level all the way up to the federal. The industry lobbies mightily for its own interests, sometimes using less than honest tactics (e.g. astroturfing), in order to obtain favorable laws. Sometimes that means outright favoritism; other times it means unnecessary complexity, through which it can then pay its lawyers to find loopholes like this one.
It also goes out of its way to co-opt regulators (like, I don't know, the FCC chairman) to enforce the laws in the way most favorable to telecoms companies, as well as suing over any law or enforcement action it doesn't like. And when none of that works, the companies *accidentally* make errors that just so happen to save them lots of money.
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
Are you joking? Verizon, through intentional manipulation or genuine ignorance (as claimed) systemically misrepresented their market share across the entire state of New Jersey, one local municipality at a time. They're lucky to not be paying penalties.
Of course, this is hardly a drop in the bucket for Verizon, even if they have to pay back the full amount going back a decade to every city/county/district/slum they bilked.
Upvote
31
(32
/
-1)
:high:It's generations of "all taxes are teh evil!!!" that has lead to the utter failure of the education system, and the near collapse of most infrastructure.
You can make many MANY valid points about the efficiency of how a government spends tax dollars.
But it's blatantly obvious that the mindset of 'no taxes' has done massive damage to the country
Upvote
63
(65
/
-2)
How do you propose the government do anything without taxes?
Upvote
52
(53
/
-1)
Like the rest of the libertarian/Republican crowd he is expecting to be one of the privileged class like Verizon and the rich who can be exempt from paying their share. The government will get it's taxes from YOU, yah lazy prole.
Upvote
41
(45
/
-4)
There is not an area in New Jersey where FiOS is an option but there is no cable option.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Not really as it is more clarification on a judicial misinterpretation of a law written in 1997.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
"Why, from foreign import tariffs, of course..."
(Yes, that's just another tax you pay.)
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
No Verizon tries to be a little less obtuse about it, i mean we all know they will do it, but they don't brag about it, instead they buy the Chairman of the FCC...
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
They also don't hire Lawyers that wouldn't even make sense in a TV courtroom, that happen to be former Mayors....
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)