More on stunning inaccuracy of Teletruth and NewNetworks
UPDATE: 'TeleTruth' and 'NewNetworks' caved and rewrote the screed. Now, the only remnant of the original lie is the whiny comment, "NOTE: BEAVER CREEK, the ski resort, is supposedly not affiliated with the phone company." They could confirm that if they wanted to, but as long as no one calls them on their irresponsibility, this, as well as many, many other websites, will continue to post lies as truth.
Reader, beware.
I shall look forward to your posting that apology.
Reader, beware.
The previous post regarding a farrago of inaccuracy about Beaver Creek Telephone written by some jaspers from New York City, 'TeleTruth', and an ally of theirs, NewNetworks.com, has a response. I reviewed it, and here's my rebuttal (in Courier) to their pile of... whatever.
Red letters reveal the evidence they don't have the discipline to spell check before hitting 'Send'.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 21:29, Bruce Kushnick <bruce@newnetworks.com> wrote:
Thanks for your email
And, thank you for a timely reply.
>You're confusing Beaver Creek, Colorado, the ski resort, with Beavercreek, Oregon, which has the telco in question, four
>states over and 1,200 miles away. Sure makes your case looks better, in the 'throw it up against the wall and see if it
>sticks' method of litigiousness, to serve your corporate interests, but trying to conflate the wealth of Vail, Colorado with
>the telecom needs of rural Oregon is just plain wrong.
… we’ll be glad to clear up any mistake as we mentioned the ski resort as well as the phone comnpany --- and it would seem that the ski resort is in ‘Beaver creek” and served by the Beaver Creek Coopertative phone company, which has 2 locations – The two in question.
Perhaps not, for Telcodata.us shows no 'Beaver Creek Coopertative (sic) phone company' at all in the Vail rate center, where Beaver Creek, Colorado is located. http://www.telcodata.us/
Do you have documentation to substantiate your allegation in this regard, inasmuch as a disinterested third party of credibility contradicts your assertion?
>This is from our story----The company states: “Beaver Creek Cooperative Telephone Company (BCT)
> is a member-owned organization that provides friendly, high-quality, professional service at reasonable rates to the Beaver Creek and >Oregon City region. At BCT we focus on combining advanced communications technologies with local customer service.” http://www.bctelco.com/index.asp
And The company in question --- which we identified as the recipient of the monies. --- the $11,892 per line. – the phone company— Doesn’t it service the ski resort, which gets cheap prices because of the monies being given to the company – the $12,000 a line are government subsidies?
Telcodata.us (op cit.) says not.
And the ski resort isn’t getting the money?
Telcodata.us (op cit.) says not.
OK, then the phone company that supplies them of which the citizens of Beaver creek benefit from the cheap prices is also a co-operative, which actually pays dividends if the company makes a profit --- so, those who work at the ski resort are part of the co-operative which is getting monies indirectly throguh cost savings because of government subsidies as well as profit sharing – while they get -- $12000 a line from the government? (for some lines, all lines?)
Telcodata.us (op cit.) says not.
But, we’ll be glad to can admit if the Ski resort isn’t part of the phone company cooperative…
But that’s not the issue – the iss is the--- How can there be any justification for $12000 a line?
Have you ever laid cable through Oregon granite? Do you have personal experience with our mudslides, our floods, our forest fires? Infrastructure has to be replaced far more often and must be far sturdier, here.
The other problem is not with Beaver creek but with the system And how does the system manipulate the monies involved to get this subsidy? Beaver creek is able to say it loses money on specific services and get subsidized, when at the same time the overall revenues over the lines is not accounted for and taken into account – so, the company could upgrade to DSL, while the DSL revenues or long distance revenues are not included in the accounting for subsidies, just the expenses.
<snip>
>Now, I'm just an unemployed PC and telco technician (with no connection to BCT, OBTW), but even I know to double check my facts before I go public on >the web with a screed. You didn't. Shame on you, NewNetworks and 'TeleTruth'.
>An apology to Beavercreek, in fact, both of them, is in order.
You got to be kidding me? – Who’s getting $12000 and needs our apology – Teletruth loses money --- and when don’t go to the government for handouts.
But, I apoligize to the ski resort, wouldn’t want to have them tainted with Universal Service high cost fund money.
<snip>
Comments