New Networks Institute

Website Links

Description

For Immediate Release: February 2nd, 2004 Bruce Kushnick, 212-777-5418, brucekushnick@teletruth.org To read the Complaint and other materials http://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandfraud.html Broadband Fraud in PA? Are Customers Owed $1,135.00 for a Fiber Optic Network They Never Received? Teletruth Files New Complaint with the Penn. PUC to Investigate $3.9 Billion in Missing Fiber-Optic Networks. New York -- Teletruth today filed an updated Complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to investigate what they are calling "Broadband Fraud" for a potential refund of $1135.00 per household, representing over $3.9 billion in excess profits, tax deductions, and other financial perks. In 1994, Verizon (then Bell Atlantic) made a deal with the phone customers in the state. In exchange for deregulation that gave the phone company more profits as well as other financial perks, the company committed to creating a fiber-based network that could deliver two-way services at 45MPS to customers' home and offices in rural, urban and suburban areas. By 2004, 50% of the state is supposed to be wired. "Our complaint centers around the basic fact --- It's 2004 and we now know that Verizon couldn't build the networks when they made their contractual arrangement with the citizens of PA in 1994. In fact, every current statement made by Verizon clearly shows that they are only now, in 2004, starting 'test' deployments. We estimate that every household has paid $1135 for a network they will never receive -- and we believe customers are entitled to the money back and any new networks should be put up for bid" said Bruce Kushnick, Chairman, Teletruth. Here ’s an example of a fraudulent act from a normal, though identical business environment. --- A state contracts a company to build a new highway system for $3.9 billion and sets timeframes, goals and specifications. The contractor doesn't deliver. Wouldn't the state sue the contractor for breach of contract? This is no different. And what would happen if the contractor, instead of using concrete, simply put in another sub-standard dirt road? Wouldn ’t the state take the company to court for a "bait-and-switch"? In the Pennsylvania case, unlike a state funded project paid for by taxes, Verizon, a monopoly, utility and public company was able to charge customers higher rates for local phone services, garnering more money through excess profits and other financial perks. "The other difference between this case of highway construction fraud and the failed fiber optic Info-Highway is simple --- The Bells have been able to have lobbying and political support to cover over an obvious breach of contract with the citizens of Pennsylvania" adds Kushnick. The Complaint notes that DSL is not a replacement for a fiber-based service. DSL is mostly one-way, doesn't reach most rural areas and it is approximately 50-100 times slower than what was promised as the minimum speed. --- It's like comparing a Ferrari on the Info-bahn to a skateboard on a dirt road.

Products & services

Similar companies nearby