|reply to Bob61571 |
Re: shift of priorities..
Maybe state-level pay-to-play was on the table precisely because the federal policies were that telco could finally sell cable-tv(video) services and would have access to BILLIONS in revenue.. however if you look at the timeline on who was running congress and setting policy in the 90s vs the 2000s my main point stands..
verizon's choice to shift priorities were in a sense directly related to a few main goals... not spend/overspend on pay to play, and at the same time picking winners and losers... the easiest places to pick the winners were the northeast, texas, and the west coast... almost everyone else was a loser..
Verizon will have to make a decision on what it has not already sold down the river to Frontier & Fairpoint. It is doubtful states will let these incumbents in at least part of the remaining geographies keep their current franchise free of competition-- forever..