dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
109
share rss forum feed

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Bring on the damage awards...

You can't have your cake, and eat it too.

The community wanted broadband, so they sought a vendor to provide it, and the vendor took the risk on the investment. Now that their system is aging, they want to abrogate the agreement.

How do you think an MDU vendor finances the massive cost of broadband, if they can't bond a group of homeowners for 25 years plus?


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
It doesn't take 25 years for ROI for broadband, especially if it was rolled out during construction. Kind of removes "last mile" from last mile, don't you think?

3 years tops ROI.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to elray
This thing has two main flaws, one is they failed to provide quality service. Second is that while you could get another carrier you were bound to still pay Open Band.(However they do not state what would happen if somebody refused to pay and told them to cancel their service.)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to DataRiker
Not speaking to ROI; that's not at issue - its a question of the vendor being able to finance the project, and therefore offer broadband/triple-play to an unserved community.

I would have never penned a 25-year agreement - 10 makes more sense, but obviously the monthly charge would be higher.

But this community *did* agree to it. Basic contract law applies - both ways. Who knows, maybe the defendants will successfully argue that "the vendor sucks", and prevail - but in doing so, they will raise the cost for anyone else seeking a similar MDU bid.