 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Oh please enough with the whining
Ok let's address "cherry picking" if at&t didn't get reform in my state guess what NO ONE would have u-verse. yeah that's better. Then cable/satellite would have one less competitor. which is really what this is about. Cable/sate bitching. which I find ironic because thanks to the so called pro-at&t reform Comcast and Charter can ALSO get statewide franchise and not have to deal with city by city which you'd think they prefer. comsumer protection? Sorry didn't have that before anyways. All my LOCAL franchise got use was fewer channels and higher prices. Where is my protection? Anyone that sings the prasies of LOCAL franchise agreements is a fucking moron. By the way at least in my state at&t is in fact required to service a certain minium number of households and not just in well to do areas within 3 years. So that adresses both protections and cheery picking. |
|
| said by BF69:Cable/sate bitching. which I find ironic because thanks to the so called pro-at&t reform Comcast and Charter can ALSO get statewide franchise and not have to deal with city by city which you'd think they prefer. Actually most of the changes to the franchise rules favor telecom upgrades only as they typically allow statewide franchises for IPTV. Most cable cos do not yet do IPTV and may not for some time so no, they can not get statewide franchises in most cases. I believe a much older bill governs cable co. franchise requirements. So I would say they have pretty good reason to bitch.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| WRONG Insight Communications, when't from having a franchise agreement for my house w/Blendon Township, to now with Ohio Dept of Commerce. |
|
|
|
