| |firephotoWe the peoplePremium
said by silbaco:Would that be the AT&T that is not a provider here (i am in the nation btw)? Maybe Verizon that isn't here? Comcast, nope. Charter, nope. Time Warner, nope.
They clearly have no intention of ever becoming a national provider.
Are there actually any national providers, my casual research says no.
And to clarify, provider of the internet, not walled internet likeness.
Say no to those that inadvertently make false representations.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: Can't Be! Nope. Shareholders are the greatest source of that investment capital. They don't hold it up, they enable it. The quarterly filing simply means that the company is more closely scrutinized.
Privately held firms are simply able to take greater risks, including those which imperil the future, the very existence of the company. I don't know, in the case of Grande - this appears to be a small cherry-picked market segment, so they might be able to absorb a loss, but again, Moody's doesn't seem to approve.
Again, it doesn't bother me either way. If they go belly-up, the fire-sale will generally result in cheap assets for whoever takes over, which artificially lowers the cost to the consumer, at nominal cost to the treasury and the bondholders who believed in them.
If they profit, selling $65 FTTH against Google and AT&T, that's fantastic, more power to them.