<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Re: hmm&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22251581</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:13:49 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:13:49 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22261770</link>
<description><![CDATA[Matt posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1302616" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1302616');">Darth Fiber</a>:</small><br><br>It wasn't the same Cablevision.  The Cablevision from New York only had a system in Ohio for a while, because one of the Dolans lives out there.<br><br>Lightpath isn't limited to certain markets, they do have a statewide francise in New Jersey.  The only limit is how close the customer is to their fiber.<br> </div>Weird, it was the same logo.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22261770</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:42:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22261460</link>
<description><![CDATA[Darth Fiber posted : It wasn't the same Cablevision.  The Cablevision from New York only had a system in Ohio for a while, because one of the Dolans lives out there.<br><br>Lightpath isn't limited to certain markets, they do have a statewide francise in New Jersey.  The only limit is how close the customer is to their fiber.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22261460</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:20:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22253833</link>
<description><![CDATA[acs12798 posted : I think that is a flawed analysis.  Cablevision has an easier time deploying because they are literally in the best cable market possible.  Its dense continuous suburbs(dense enough that a lot of people I meet at school who are not from major cities consider it urban) but single family housing at the same time.  Easy to deploy, and the areas almost uniformly wealthy.  <br><br>Anyway, I have to disagree with the initial comment in this thread anyway. I agree that Cablevision isn't a bad cable <b>internet</b> provider.  They are terrible with TV IMO.  They are as slow if not slower than the big guys in deploying HD, and they cram 4 HD channels in one QAM.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22253833</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:02:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22252063</link>
<description><![CDATA[PhoenixDown posted : Cablevision also owns Lightpath, a CLEC who - in limited markets - runs fiber to the prem for businesses. <br><br>I think it would be easier for Cablevision switch over to a 100% fiber network when the time comes.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22252063</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:34:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22251770</link>
<description><![CDATA[Matt posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by OOL Tech1234 :</small><br><br>YuP! Definitely Cablevision isn't the bad cable provider. They offer great speeds, a good rate and alots to offer. If only Cablevision were to expand, they would definitely steal all of TWC and Comcast customers  :)  One can only hope.<br> </div>Cablevision was bought out in most areas. We used to be Cablevision back in the mid-late 80's here. Time Warner bought them.<br><br>What I think is interesting, is the belief that it's easier to deploy to a smaller geographic area. Cablevision could be considered proof of that.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22251770</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:42:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22251602</link>
<description><![CDATA[anon posted : YuP! Definitely Cablevision isn't the bad cable provider. They offer great speeds, a good rate and alots to offer. If only Cablevision were to expand, they would definitely steal all of TWC and Comcast customers  :)  One can only hope.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-hmm-22251602</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:05:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>hmm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/hmm-22251581</link>
<description><![CDATA[majortom1029 posted : IT depends on which cable company. Isnt cablevision spending something like only 300 million to deploy docsis 3 and wifi?<br><br>Sorry got the figure wrong.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/hmm-22251581</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:00:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

