how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
1118 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Oh My What was that old saying? Be careful what you wish for?
People need to remember this is big business, they are not your buddy. The local franchises benefit consumers. Now VZ can pick and choose which areas to install.
This just goes with the way Americans are today, they want what they want NOW. Instead of waiting a little longer for better benefits, they sacrifice them just for the chance THEY might get it faster. Screw the people who can't, at least I got it-attitude.
One word comes to mind - SHEEPLE! | |
|  donkc1
join:2000-06-17
Haskell, NJ | Re: Oh My How long do you want people to wait. They have been screwed by the local cable companies for years with ever increasing rates, and all the other BS they fed out when there wasn't anyone else to compete with. | |
| | |
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | said by LeftOfSanity:The local franchises benefit consumers. Now VZ can pick and choose which areas to install. And what benefits might those be? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that franchise agreements provided were virtual monopolies. | |
| |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by jjoshua:And what benefits might those be? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that franchise agreements provided were virtual monopolies. - Local (your) control of right of ways
- Some measure and enforcement of service standards (no state has the manpower to do this)
- Revenue that now has to be taken from somewhere else (you'll see)
- Local cable access that provided channels to the public, government, and schools
- Company-provided networks for cities and schools that are used for things like public safety and lowered telecom/data costs
These are just a few of the items. Also, under current federal law cities can't grant cable monopolies, and in many cities, there is a clear process for competitors to come in and offer service. The reason why more haven't? Cost, plain and simple. It's very expensive to roll out these networks, and having a local or state franchise is not going to significantly change that. All NJ has done is speed up deployment maybe a few months at best. What about in 5-10 years when consumers and cities are being screwed and nothing can be done? Where is the long-term thinking here? | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards.
What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market.
Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. I've already warned some of them not to publicize it, so as not to be targeted by cable/bell lawyers. | |
| | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. All right of ways? So what role should cities have? Do you support statewide zoning too? Why can't local folks have some say over THEIR right of ways? Do you really want somebody on the other side of the state telling you what you can do?
Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards. You're assuming that there will always be two competitors. I can easily foresee Verizon having half-built systems out there and then their stockholders pulling the plug, so you're stuck with no real alternatives.
What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market. If you think there's going to be less litigation with statewide franchises, well, that's your opinion. The only relief anyone will have in a state franchise is the courts. As far as standards, cities had a standard with their existing cable franchise as a starting point for any new provider.
Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. Yes, but I would argue that company-provided networks are cheaper (as it happens concurrently with upgrade/deployment that the company is already doing) to build, so the cost to the taxpayers is less, and they get nearly the same thing. | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My said by jslik:said by Ahrenl:Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. All right of ways? So what role should cities have? Do you support statewide zoning too? Why can't local folks have some say over THEIR right of ways? Do you really want somebody on the other side of the state telling you what you can do? Any "right of ways" that extend beyond their jurisdiction. (ie. Information, electrical, energy systems. Possibly sewer and water if on a shared network with other cities/towns)
said by jslik:Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards. You're assuming that there will always be two competitors. I can easily foresee Verizon having half-built systems out there and then their stockholders pulling the plug, so you're stuck with no real alternatives. Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors?
said by jslik:What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market. If you think there's going to be less litigation with statewide franchises, well, that's your opinion. The only relief anyone will have in a state franchise is the courts. As far as standards, cities had a standard with their existing cable franchise as a starting point for any new provider. The lawyer fee's I meant were those that deal with each municipality during local franchise agreement. 
said by jslik:Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. Yes, but I would argue that company-provided networks are cheaper (as it happens concurrently with upgrade/deployment that the company is already doing) to build, so the cost to the taxpayers is less, and they get nearly the same thing. Well, you get what you pay for. If you want networks that are built by others, you have to be willing to accept some caveats. Like they're not going to build them to lose money, and they're going to charge you as much as they can to just before the point that you'll switch to their competition. If those aren't the rules, then no private investment would take place. The rich would just sit on their money, the poor would pay for everything. (through taxes, unless you're proposing a "wealth tax" ie. income redistribution. Which by the way, would lead to the breakdown of western civilization) | |
| | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors? Difficulty entering the market? How so? The telcos are complaining about these 'barriers to entry' but when pressed to show real and specific examples, then they're strangely quiet. Again, they could have done it before, but they want a leg up on cable. The 1996 Telecom Act was specifically written, in part, to let the telcos get into the cable business and what have they done in those 10 years? Nothing, and in fact, have gotten out of their limited forays into the business. How many competing systems could be up and running right now if they had gotten off their rears? | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My said by jslik:said by Ahrenl:Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors? Difficulty entering the market? How so? The telcos are complaining about these 'barriers to entry' but when pressed to show real and specific examples, then they're strangely quiet. Again, they could have done it before, but they want a leg up on cable. The 1996 Telecom Act was specifically written, in part, to let the telcos get into the cable business and what have they done in those 10 years? Nothing, and in fact, have gotten out of their limited forays into the business. How many competing systems could be up and running right now if they had gotten off their rears? The 1996 telecom act was one of the biggest disasters ever. So full of loopholes, it wholesale forced 1,000's of small business's out of the market. It did nothing but reduce competition, and it did nothing to fix the fact that there is a tremendous lead-time for each community before you can compete within it. This lead-time allows encumbent providers to aggresively (and temporarily) cut their prices to below value creating levels in order to prevent competition from entering the market. Ask RCN all about it, now that they've come out of bankruptcy, from just this practice. (although many will say it was because of over building. It's only over-building when your compeitior is GIVING away the service whenever you've finally gotten your franchise agreement in place, and installed your network rights. Hmmm.) | |
| | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:This lead-time allows encumbent providers to aggresively (and temporarily) cut their prices to below value creating levels in order to prevent competition from entering the market. And how is a statewide franchise going to prevent this from happening?
We're only talking about a difference of a few months; so whether the incumbent is offering lower prices now or six months from now when the new guy is there with a local franchise makes no difference, the prices are lower. Also, these major deployments wouldn't be one city at a time; even with local franchising, you would have several cities coming 'on-line' at nearly the same time.
It seems like you're making the argument against competition. | |
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My 6mo's doesn't mean anything? A company that can run for a year without making any money is considered VERY well capitalized. Being able to do it for six months can still get you an investment grade rating. Think if you spent piles of money for 6mo's to FINALLY get to the point where you can offer service, then at that point your competitor decides to give everyone 3-6mo of free or next to free service. Now you've burnt through a years worth of cash. I'm sure that's going to make you want to repeat that a couple 100 times just to build out one state. And, oh yeah, every ghetto will have to be wired too, even if your employee's are too scared to go and wire them, and the people there can't even afford a computer to connect to the net with; and will steal any equipment you deploy because they have nothing to lose. (Not to mention failure to pay, because they have no credit rating to wreck).
With local franchising you DON'T have several cities coming 'on-line' at the same time. That's the problem.
I'm afraid I don't connect how I'm making an argument against competition? | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My "Think if you spent piles of money for 6mo's to FINALLY get to the point where you can offer service, then at that point your competitor decides to give everyone 3-6mo of free or next to free service." Again, how is statewide franchising going to alleviate this problem? The main issue, as you've said, is the incumbent slashing prices. A state franchise isn't going to fix it. Also, go look at where there is competition today under the old rules. They're still making money. RCN would have failed even under a national franchise scheme.
Even in the state process, it does take some time, so you're still 'burning through the cash'.
Show me a real example of where local franchising was a 'barrier to entry', and I may think differently. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
1 edit | Re: Oh My said by jslik:Again, how is statewide franchising going to alleviate this problem? The problem is that New Jersey has 567, count 'em, 567 municipalities. That's an incredible number for a small state. And that means 567 franchise agreements to be negotiated, all with different terms and conditions, and 567 teams of lawyers to be paid big bucks in the process. That's insane! All it (567 separate agreements) accomplishes is reducing competition, making rates higher for the customers, and making the lawyers rich.
--
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
» George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My I understand, but I doubt Verizon is going to offer services in all 567, even with statewide franchising, and making things easier for the Verizons of the world can be done without sacrificing practically all protections for the consumer and cities, and if you think there will be less work/money for the lawyers under a statewide franchise, well, just wait and see.
Verizon, if serious, could get many cities signed (as they have been doing) in a short period of time. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My I've offered examples, all you've said is, you're wrong, show me more. If you have any way of showing a way in which local franchises INCREASED competition please feel free to enlighten me.
Eventually it just has to come down to common sense. And we've already explained how "sacrificing practically all protections" isn't happening. I'm not even really sure what protections you think we have under local franchises (what I live under) right now? My service is horrible, my prices are unbearable, and there's no competition. And I live 20 miles from Boston. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17
2 edits | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:I've offered examples, all you've said is, you're wrong, show me more. If you have any way of showing a way in which local franchises INCREASED competition please feel free to enlighten me. Here's an example from right here on BBR....
»Click!
The Click network in Tacoma (which has to go through the same franchise 'hoops' as anyone else) is providing services to Tacoma, and existing Comcast subscribers are paying less than me (30 miles away) for the same exact service....
Another? Here's an article from 2000 in Cable World:
»www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_m···tion.inc
"Part of the reason there are so many overbuilds today can also be traced to ease in getting municipal franchises for new systems, with federal regulations clearly allowing competition. The real draw is that the new overbuilders see a huge profit potential, building out fiber-optic and hybrid systems that offer bundled services, and getting these services to subscribers often more quickly than existing operators, whose plants are in need of upgrade."
So, what happened? These companies, like RCN, were blown out by the tech bubble, not because of local franchising.
It's not local franchising that is keeping folks out, it's the cost of building the networks. State franchising isn't going to change that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | Re: Oh My RCN went bankrupt in 2004, long long after the internet bubble. But that's always a good scape goat.
Your first example links to a "MUNICIPALLY run cable utility" creating competition which resulted in lower prices. They are NOT subject to franchise 'hoops' as they 'sell' the franchise. Also notice that Qwest "is scrambling to compete in the region". I can't pull up that article, but I'm sure the franchise 'hoops' haven't helped there.
Your second article is the most incumbent biased piece of trash I've read. It actually only refers to all other cable units that aren't Comcast as "over-builders", but it certainly goes out of its way to mention how easy it is to get municipal franchises. Just like all competitors are "over-builders", and "nearly all the sites targeted of invloved in overbuild are urban and suburban markets where STATE-OF-THE-ART cable systems were installed MORE THAN A DECADE AG0". More than a decade ago? State-of-the-art? Corporate Shill?
Here's their target customer:
"CableWorld focuses exclusively on key headquarter and regional decision-makers who are the heart and soul of the business – those who run the operations. Leading cable executives get the analysis, trends and case studies they need to effectively implement their company’s business plan."
The cost of building the network is only large if you're trying to do it say, on the entire eastern sea-board at the same time. Verizon spent a few billion, last year on it. But they built in 15 DIFFERENT STATES, in 100's of towns at the same time. If you want more information on it, there's a great verizon fios forum on BBR you can read to your hearts content. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17
1 edit | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:RCN went bankrupt in 2004, long long after the internet bubble. But that's always a good scape goat. It's a better explanation than trying to blame RCN's woes on local franchising.
Your first example links to a "MUNICIPALLY run cable utility" creating competition which resulted in lower prices. They are NOT subject to franchise 'hoops' as they 'sell' the franchise. Also notice that Qwest "is scrambling to compete in the region". I can't pull up that article, but I'm sure the franchise 'hoops' haven't helped there. Then what is this franchise agreement for Click?
They have the same requirements as any other provider. Again, under CURRENT LAW people are paying less! Qwest's problems are way, way bigger than any local or potential state/federal franchise obligation. Qwest has a grandfathered statewide franchise for telecom - and has still managed to screw things up and lose customers.
Your second article is the most incumbent biased piece of trash I've read. Oh, and the telcos line about 'barriers to entry' isn't biased trash? I noticed you don't refute the main premises of the article - that in the 1999-2000 era, you had literally hundreds of planned deployments around the country - yet nobody at the time was screaming about local franchising. What is so different now, except the telcos don't want to be bothered by it? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My No it's really not.
They may have penned up a franchise agreement for themselves.. It still doesn't dispute the fact that it was probably the same guy running the cable utility as wrote up the agreement. I agree Qwest is hopeless.
No it's not. If you've ever tried to do anything with any municipal government, you'd know it's next to impossible. Even if you happen to be a selectman in that government.
There's a big difference between saying, we're going to deploy all this infrastructure, and going out and being able to do it. Maybe if they hadn't spent a good amount of their time getting 100's of different franchise agreements they wouldn't have mostly gone belly up. In fact I think that "main premise" may just underscore the reason local franchise agreement are a bad idea. There were plenty of those small companies complaining about local franchise agreements, but this article doesn't mention any of them because this publication is only written for the upper management of the large encumbent cable operators. As it states on their webpage. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by Ahrenl:No it's really not. They may have penned up a franchise agreement for themselves.. It still doesn't dispute the fact that it was probably the same guy running the cable utility as wrote up the agreement. No, they're not, really. Tacoma City Light had to sign a franchise with the City of Tacoma, two separate entities, departments, and agendas.
No it's not. If you've ever tried to do anything with any municipal government, you'd know it's next to impossible. Well, that depends. The bigger the government, the harder, I would say, but that's true for any organization, public or private.
There were plenty of those small companies complaining about local franchise agreements, but this article doesn't mention any of them because this publication is only written for the upper management of the large encumbent cable operators. As it states on their webpage. Never mind the small guys, where were the complaints from the big telcos at the time? I didn't hear AT&T or Ameritech griping at the time when they owned systems. All the major telcos thought the cable provisions in the '96 act were great, and they said at the time that they'd get into video soon. Didn't happen, did it? Again, they've had 10 years to get into video (actually there are 4 ways for them to do it in the '96 act) and they chose not to, after promising they would. Now, it's some 'huge' crisis?
Look, bottom line for me, is that the telcos have gone back on their word time and time again. So when they say local franchising is the major hindrance, I just don't believe them, and if you look at what they said through the years, you'd have a hard time believing them, too. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| said by jslik:sacrificing practically all protections for the consumer and cities, In the current system, there are no protections for the consumer or municipalities. Such protections may exist on paper, but in the real world, there are no protections.
--
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
» George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by Bobcat:In the current system, there are no protections for the consumer or municipalities. Such protections may exist on paper, but in the real world, there are no protections. Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to as consumers can and do file complaints about cable companies all the time; but let's be honest, their main complaint is rates, which were deregulated a long time ago. How is more deregulation going to help? The telcos, when the '96 Telecom Act was passed, promised that they would get into the video business. They weren't complaining about local franchising then, and they didn't deliver as promised. Why should anyone believe them now? | |
|
| | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | said by jslik:These are just a few of the items. And these don't add up to a heck of a lot...
Right of way? This is well established.
Service standards? If the service isn't good, I'll get it from some other vendor.
Revenue? Cable TV should never have been a revenue source to begin with.
Public channels? Does anyone actually care about them?
Lower cost for the town? They'll see the same benefits as the rest of us. | |
| | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by jjoshua:And these don't add up to a heck of a lot... Right of way? This is well established. The only thing well established is local control of the right of way. Preemption is the newer idea.
Service standards? If the service isn't good, I'll get it from some other vendor. Yes, assuming there is another vendor serving your neighborhood, and you don't mind the hassle of switching, and resolving any billing/money dispute with your old vendor.
Revenue? Cable TV should never have been a revenue source to begin with. Cable TV is not the revenue source; it's the property that constitutes the ROW, or do you think it's ok for government to charge no rent for your (public) property?
Public channels? Does anyone actually care about them? Yes, the millions of folks that participate/watch public, government, and educational channels do care. Look at practically any survey done to see what type of programming people want to see and local TV is always near the top, and where else are you going to get local events/news/programming than from these access channels?
Lower cost for the town? They'll see the same benefits as the rest of us.
What benefits? If cities are forced to build out their own networks, you'll pay for it. | |
| | | | | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Oh My I have no problem switching to the best vendor as it suits me.
Perhaps any vendor that's capable of providing service should be allowed to hang their wires from the town poles free of charge. What are we worried about... too many vendors? The last mile and ROW access has always been the problem. Let's just eliminate it once and for all.
Millions of peope watching the local access channel? Really? | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My Local access is important, as it's one of the only avenue's left for public forums to be broadcast; which is necessary to hold local governments accountable. Weather or not your watching it, if they're not being broadcast, they'll end up corrupt and abusive. It's happened in almost every community I've been a part of.
As for muni's paying for it.. PLEASE, let us pay for it. The savings to tax payers would be astronomical. Not to mention these things really aren't that expensive to setup in a small scale. The most expensive part is the actual wiring it to your house, which could be picked up by individuals. If you told me I had to spend $1000's to get my house wired for a $50/mo triple pay instead of paying $200's a month for the same services for the rest of my life, I would jump for joy. The cost to Muni's for just wiring their town (san's house hookup) should be in the 1/2 mil range. (at least that's what I've experienced.) The annual budget for my town is $66 mil. (just to put it in perspective) | |
| | | | | | | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Oh My Local towns should set up a web cam and record their town meetings for access through a website.
I'm all for accountability. If the town meetings are accessible through a web site, then who really cares about a dedicated TV channel that's only available through a single vendor? | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Oh My I agree with you on that one. Unfortunately it will be a few decades before the people who are running these things are comfortable with that. You wouldn't believe the fight that took place just to get a video camera in there. Trying to explain and convince people who are scared of email that it should be broadcast on the web is a ways off. Plus both are pretty much controlled by the same vendor still.  That's what we're talking about.. | |
| | | | | | | |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by jjoshua:Local towns should set up a web cam and record their town meetings for access through a website. I'm all for accountability. If the town meetings are accessible through a web site, then who really cares about a dedicated TV channel that's only available through a single vendor? So you have to own a computer to participate in goverment, great concept. Meanwhile for years cable has done this.. Lets turn back history with Verizon.
--
Vonage--No annual contract really means 13 month commitment. | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| said by LeftOfSanity:The local franchises benefit consumers. I get no benefits from Cablevision. Unless you count ever-increasing rates as a benefit. And a whopping 70 channels for $48 per month.
--
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
» George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 | |
| | | Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? | |
| | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by tqhoang:Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? So you think it's right to give away millions to the telcos just because they don't like the rules? They had the ability to come in and offer services before; they just didn't want the hassle. Several cities around the country have competing cable outfits right now under the 'old' rules...consumers are paying less there AND they have some measure of protection/control. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Oh My Well my friend, unless you've lived in NJ, then you just don't understand the tax situation/problem here.
I will gladly support a "Verizon Cable Tax" because most of us realize that in the end, the competition will hopefully cripple the cable monopoly and it's unregulated price increases. Ever hear of price gouging?
To put things in perspective, I have no other alternative for cable television...and satellite television is not an option. | |
| | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Oh My said by tqhoang:To put things in perspective, I have no other alternative for cable television...and satellite television is not an option. I understand what you're saying...competition is great for everybody, especially the consumer. I just don't see these statewide measures as the answer, as they don't address the real reasons and costs that have prevented competition. My fear is in 5-10 years we all will rue the days these measures passed. | |
|
| | | said by tqhoang:Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? Actually, i never heard/saw the ad your referring to. And no, I wouldn't sacrifice others broadband availability just so I could have it sooner.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! | |
| | | | | Re: Oh My Ok, guess you don't live in NJ or the tri-state area either.
Please tell me how "others broadband availability" is being sacrificed? If it's not available in your area, then go with one of the big cable companies for broadband internet. I'm just happy that there's even a chance for competition. | |
|
| |
|
