Over the Panties, Under the Bra


Sorry, it is just so very funny to watch FCC chief Kevin Martin get date-raped by Verizon after Martin has done his very best to give the Bells everything they want—all while trying not to look like a little slut in the process.

To recap, after the FCC prevailed upon the telcos to abandon the totally bogus Universal Service Fee on DSL lines, a couple telcos immediately tried to slip it back in. Bell South tried charging a no-good-reason $2.97 monthly fee in its stead, but dropped the fee after its suits and lobbyists figured that the gouging might complicate the merger with AT&T.

Verizon is sticking with its out-the-ass "supplier surcharge" which Verizon says is needed to recoup its "losses" when it offers naked DSL to customers. Naked DSL is, of course, DSL service without an accompanying USF-paying local landline. Getting dizzy yet?

One wild guess: Verizon is forcing Martin and the FCC to admit that land-line service is dead as a door nail and it is OK to begin moving out of that business. Or maybe Verizon really is that rapacious. We'll see.

Up next month, AT&T leaves Martin's number on a bathroom wall.

Update: Verizon has flipped and has now killed the fee as well.

NEXT: If You Can't Get Them to Stop Using Drugs, at Least You Can Get Them to Make Fun of You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Up until now, Reason has primarily argued that this is all freemarket (you know, the fact that me and my neighbors can’t negotiate, even though all the lines lay on property we own, either personally or through our local corporations{towns})

    I’m not sure what to make of the fact that you folks have noticed it’s not a free market.

    A bit late to the game though.

    About 20 years

  2. What the heck are you talking about? Please don’t assume that we’re up on the latest intricacies of the telco market.

  3. I work for a municipality, and we negotiate with Verizon regularly with regards to compensation for the use of public right of ways.

  4. And after reading this, people will still oppose ‘net neutrality’.

  5. I’m not sure what to make of the fact that you folks have noticed it’s not a free market.

    you cuz i don’t pay verizon one dime for phone, internet or TV yet i still get all three…that is why this isn’t a free market becouse other people choose to give verizon thier money for bogus charges.

  6. Do you want me to throw up?

  7. smaaacky!

  8. Could you describe the ruckus, sir?

  9. So reason is pro-regulation now? The FCC should be pressuing a business to lower its rates for some reason? It’s not like the service offered by verizon is exactly a monopoly, what with cable internet, wireless broadband, VoIP.
    I guess you could make an argument that they make these charges sound like a non-optional tax, and somehow that’s wrong. I suppose you’re going to have the FAA put pressure on the airlines not to tack on fuel charges? To charge less for in-flight coctails?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.