Comcast: TV Everywhere In '30-60 Days' COO Burke talks about Internet TV and WiMax Comcast Chief Operating Officer Stephen Burke today told attendees of an investor conference that the company would be rolling out "TV Everywhere" as part of a national pilot within 30-60 days. The TV Everywhere model has carriers taking TV content and putting it online behind an authentication wall free for existing customers -- as a way to help prevent customers from cutting the cord. Burke also this week chimed in on Comcast's rebranded Clearwire service, telling attendees Comcast is "significantly ahead," of projections, while insisting Comcast was "hard core about 4G." According to Burke, Comcast plans to launch WiMax in "most markets by the end of next year," though that obviously depends on Clearwire's network build speed.
|
  damonlabPremium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI | Only for bundles? I wonder if they let you access the same content over an AT&T line? | |
|  |  IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Only for bundles? Knowing Comcast, this will probably count against the 250GB usage cap... | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only for bundles? 250GB is a soft cap, for the fiftieth time.
Also, if they didn't count it against the cap everyone would be whining about Net Neutrality. You can't win.
Personally, I'd be happy paying a monthly fee to access at least some of the TV Everywhere content, without Comcast cable. I have a computer that I can hook up to my HDTV, so I don't need an STB etc... | |
| | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Only for bundles? Who cares if it's a soft cap? I'm sure that cap feels pretty "hard" when you hit it.
What the hell does this have to do with Net Neutrality? Fios could offer this service and it's not a Net Neutrality issue.... oh wait... Fios doesn't have a cap... | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Only for bundles? Of course it is a Net Neutrality issue. Comcast must treat all IP traffic the same, even though this service is a connection to their own service. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| As bicker said, of course it's a net neutrality issue. Comcast would then be prioritizing third-party networks' content over other third-party networks' content by having a "cap free" zone that is only accessed via an agreement between cable customers, Comcast and TV channel operators.
About the cap being hard, again I've gone over 250GB and haven't heard anything from Comcast. They aren't charging for overages and they won't kill your connection outright on one offense. Additionally, the streaming media on TV Everywhere probably won't be high-quality enough to make the cap even come into play.
That said, I'd love a fiber optic connection to the home with no caps and high throughput. However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. They can't do anything right, etc. etc. etc. Which totally disregards the fact that they're the largest cable provider in the US to launch DOCSIS 3 service (and the largest cable provider period). They'll be the second cable provider (and the second non-muni provider by the way) to offer 100 Mbps download speeds on a connection costing less than $500 per month. Despite what people say, service is actually decent in many of their area and I'd much rather have their service than, say, Time Warner Cable's at this point, though TWC is cheaper. | |
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Only for bundles? said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. Excellent example, and to be clear, my perspectives were greatly affected by the fact that I was there at "Ma Bell" in the time after divestiture, and it was shocking how unfairly we were regarded by mass-market consumers regarding residential service. It was still the very early dawn of rapacious entitlement mentality, though, back then, and so I really am blown-away sometimes by how self-centered some consumers are with regard to service providers today.
| |
| | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Only for bundles? said by bicker:said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. Excellent example, and to be clear, my perspectives were greatly affected by the fact that I was there at "Ma Bell" in the time after divestiture, and it was shocking how unfairly we were regarded by mass-market consumers regarding residential service. It was still the very early dawn of rapacious entitlement mentality, though, back then, and so I really am blown-away sometimes by how self-centered some consumers are with regard to service providers today. Are you kidding? US Consumers pay more per month for less service than many other countries in the world.
For God's sake, Slovenia offers 100/10 fiber service for 20 Euro/month. You can get 100-160mbps fiber in Korea for ~$20/month. 1gbps will be the *standard* in Korea by 2012.
We're self-centered? How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? If they had been spending all those billions in profit year after year on expanding their network, we'd have a top 5 national telecommunications infrastructure.
Heck, if the telcos hadn't illegally swindled the US populace out of $200 billion, the entire country would be wired with fiber, providing at a *minimum* symmetrical 45 mbps service.
Instead, these incumbents stole that money, spent it on building out their wireless networks, and have turned that into a major cash cow. And yet looking at the wireless providers' services, national coverage is absolutely pathetic. In Sweden the government mandates 99% of the entire territory be covered. This includes the incredibly sparsely populated northern section of the country. You can go *anywhere* and you'll have perfect coverage.
In the US... well I don't need to remind you how bad it is.
I think consumers expect decent service for a decent price. We're not even asking for the ultra-competitive markets present in many other countries. We just don't want to be treated like bovine. How is that self-centered? | |
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only for bundles? Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing.
Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year.
If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Only for bundles? said by iansltx:Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing. Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year. If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. The initial cost of the coaxial plant laid down by cable companies has long been paid for. Using the cost of laying down the network is a terrible excuse for companies whose only focus is on maintenance and upkeep.
Just look at Time Warner's financials, where over the last two years they have tremendously increased profits while *decreasing* investments in upgrading their network. Besides capex, actual upgrades only cost them tens of millions, compared to the billions in profits they make every year.
The only cable company to invest in DOCSIS 2.0 was Cablevision. Why is that? A lack of money? Really?
And what about DOCSIS 3.0? Besides Comcast and Cablevision, who is investing? And even with those companies upgrading, are they providing legitimate, affordable tiers, or just using it to dig into the pockets of the ravenous early adopters?
You think cable companies and their annual rate increases on cable television are the result of a steadily increasing cost of service? Please.
And as for the telcos, you best be staying away from defending those thieves. | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only for bundles? Again, capitalism. Publicly held companies are the worst about it. If they can keep an old system without tearing up roads to make a new one, guess what sticks around? They provide services at prices the market will bear.
Also, about DOCSIS 3, you've got Comcast, Cox, Cablevision, Sunflower Broadband, Suddenlink, Charter, Service Electric Broadband/PenTeleData, MidContinent Communications and maybe a few others that have deployed the tech, though all but Comcast and Cablevision stop at the 5 Mbps mark for uploads.
Realistically though, it would cost just as much for the big cable companies to deploy fiber as it would for a new provider to come in and do it. Economies of scale would be offset by transition costs.
One thing to note: Cablevision is privately owned. They also have the highest broadband speeds in the nation over a cable network. Coincidence? I think not.
All that said, I'd rather have free enterprise (without lobbying and a government that can mar the market on a national level) than a government-owned or government-subsidized/tax-subsidized/taxpayer-subsidized network. Municipal projects are great, because they're fine-grained enough to address market realities in those cities.
In a system with little competition, the value proposition of network upgrades is merely to offer higher tiers of service, assuming people will pay for those tiers. In areas with decent competition, prices will stay the same for better speeds, or they might even drop. See the Southwest Effect with airlines.o
Again, if you think the value proposition for a for-profit business is great enough to create your own fiber network, come to my area. I'll be the first one to sign up. That's the great thing about a free country; you can do stuff like that. It's my opinion that government in this area is too large; if it has enough power to effectively give an entity or goup of entities preferential treatment over other similarentities, government is too big. | |
|
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Absolutely. Your message confirmed what I wrote. Thanks for playing your role very well.
said by sonicmerlin:How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? Have you checked your 401(k)'s recently? I checked mine. There are at least four ISPs in it.
Or are you one of those people thinking you're going to retire on Social Security.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Only for bundles? said by bicker:Absolutely. Your message confirmed what I wrote. Thanks for playing your role very well. said by sonicmerlin:How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? Have you checked your 401(k)'s recently? I checked mine. There are at least four ISPs in it. Or are you one of those people thinking you're going to retire on Social Security. Here's your problem, and essentially the problem with Republicans (I know you are one) in general.
You want the government to protect your industries and businesses. You want them to give your favored corporations the rights of an "individual". You don't want companies and their proprietors to be held responsible for financial calamities, such as bankruptcy.
Back in pre-union days, heck even during the Great Depression, average people would become so enraged with the abusive behaviors of monopolies and oligarchs that they would resort to violence.
And yet those same giant corporations enlisted government help and military force to subdue those rioters.
These days things are much more peaceful. Yet the same antagonistic forces between corporate abusers and the abused plebeian exist today. You still want the government to exact just enough laws so you and your favorite investments can profit as much as possible. But you don't want the government to even the playing field for everyone else in an attempt to simulate a truly free market (zero barrier of entry, infinite competition, profits tend towards zero, etc.).
I really dislike this pro-corporate hypocrisy. Rational thought alone will lead to a more altruistic outlook. But the vast majority of people like yourself lack even this most basic attribute. | |
| | | | | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Only for bundles? said by sonicmerlin:... Republicans (I know you are one) in general. Wrong! (I doubt anyone is surprised that you're wrong. You've been wrong pretty consistently.
I'm a registered Democrat, vegetarian, and granola cruncher. I greatly admire my church's minister, who happens to be gay (and married). I'm pro-choice, and in favor of health care reform.
I'm also a capitalist, and anti-union.
said by sonicmerlin:You want the government to protect your industries and businesses. You are wrong again! Unlike you, I want our society to balance the priorities of businesses and consumers, not favoring either over the other.
said by sonicmerlin:You want them to give your favored corporations the rights of an "individual". You are wrong again! Corporations have the rights they have. I have no interest in having them have any different status than they already have. Your denial of the reality of the status they already have is your problem.
said by sonicmerlin:You don't want companies and their proprietors to be held responsible for financial calamities, such as bankruptcy. You are wrong again!
said by sonicmerlin:I really dislike this pro-corporate hypocrisy. Your self-serving drivel is utterly ridiculous, and patently antagonistic, so I've responded in kind. You've been repeatedly wrong, and now you've painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. I cannot see how to help you get out of this gracefully. Sorry. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. They can't do anything right, etc. etc. etc. Maybe if they didn't act like Ma Bell 2.0 their customers wouldn't think they are Ma Bell 2.0. | |
| | | | | | | | "Additionally, the streaming media on TV Everywhere probably won't be high-quality enough to make the cap even come into play."
I wouldn't bet on this by a longshot. No need to throw examples, you should know better. | |
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only for bundles? I just read "don't confuse me with the facts"
The HD streams (yes, HD) I tend to watch are under 5 Mbps. Standard-def streams are under 1 Mbps. Let's go for 1.5 Mbps, tops, on standard-def.
You'd have to watch 111 hours of HDTV (nearly 4 hours per day) to hit 250GB. Considering the fact that you could watch the same programs on TV (you have their cable package if you have TVE) you probably won't hit that amount. Standard-def multiplies this number by five.
Sure, you'll be using your 'net connection for other stuff, but internet video is low-bitrate enough to cope with today's connections that you won't hit your cap all that quickly.
Even if online video quality was upped by a significant amount, satellite video tops out at about 10 Mbps for HD. That's still a lot of viewing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Only for bundles? 4 hours per day is hard how exactly?
Oh right, lets try it this way. Standard month, 8 days of weekend. 6 hours each day on the weekend (while doing work around the house, etc, whatever) + 3 hours a night on a weeknight (maybe after dinner) suddenly doesn't sound as unreasonable does it?
Oh wait, this assumes you do absolutely nothing with the internet else at all, huh? As you noted, there are other things that can make a big diff. Let's try higher def streams, lets go for 6mbps, because we need to include audio.
On the flip side, I think usage might be a not less for non power users because it's a browser window so people will a)not use it because it'll probably use silverlight and b) close out the tab as it will bog down their pc | |
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only for bundles? Again, people with TV Everywhere will already have cable TV service. So they'll only be watching TV Everywhere content on a computer screen. While your numbers are reasonable (except the bitrate; my figure already included audio and was on the high side anyhow) they assume that people will replace $10-a-month set top boxes with $500 PCs without CableCard tuners to view their content. Which is a fallacy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Only for bundles? Actually, I agree with what you are saying here, but I think the service kind of implies it/hopefully shows Comcast where they could provide additional benefits/services to customers.
I realized I sounded kind of ad hominem, so I apologize in advance if it did to you.
It's all up to the implementation and what they do; maybe we could be completely wrong and comcast will actually do a decent job? who knows. | |
|
| | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Just me? Try a house or apartment with 4-5-6 people.... 250GB is very reachable.... | |
|
| | | | | | Have you ever exceeded your cap? Most likely not so for the millionth time get i=over the fact there is a cap! | |
|
| | | | i wonder how much bandwidth a tv digital tv subsciber is using they they watched 24x7x30 free hd on demand programs. that is they use bandwidth that others cannot share. they are watching their own channel... if we did the math is comcast favoring cable tv customers over internet users.
for example how much bandwidth is used up by a 2 hr hd 1080p movie...???
when i googled i got
regular DVD runs at about 6-8Mbps
netfix hd is 8-10Mbps, so its not really hd
near hd is about 20Mbps (experimental not available for streaming over web)
blueray hd is about 54Mbps-72Mbps (not available for streaming over web)
so lets take the 8-10Mbps and multiply it out for a month and see how much bandwidth cable tv people can use.
keep in minnd when comcast customer pay for tv they are not using up bandwidth, comcast also has to pay for the content. the show/movie they are watching... i'm not deducting that from the bill.
for the lowest 6Mbps: 30 day / month
= 750.00 KB/s
= 732.42 KiB/s
= 45.00 MB/min
= 6.00 Mbps
= 2.70 GB/h
- K M G
bps: 6.00 Mbps
B/s: 750.00 KB/s 0.75 MB/s
B/min: 45.00 MB/min 0.05 GB/min
iB/s: 732.42 KiB/s 0.72 MiB/s
K M G T
B/hr: 2.70 GB/h
B/day: 64.80 GB/d 0.06 TB/d
B/mon: 1.94 TB/m
»web.forret.com/tools/bandwidth.a···nit=Mbps
Day Week Month Year
6 Mbps = 64.8 GB 453.6 GB 1.94 TB 23.33 TB
»blog.neds.com/blog/tabid/51329/b···art.aspx
wow i'm being ripped, taken for a ride, I pay $62.95/m for internet than digital starter is $60.60/m. ok there is also $42.95/m for internet, 15MBps which would work. They get 1.94TB/month and I only get 256GB/month, plus comcast has to pay for what they watch and they dont have to pay for the websites i go to.. where is the government... know i know that comcast has to pay someone when it leaves their network, but they also get credits for traffic that they carry for others. i guess to be totally fair we have to estimate and calculate that, but the numbers are shocking. FCC/FTC take that.
so lets do some more math
taking the $42.95/m for internet vs $60.60/m for digital started
1.94TB = 1940GB
$0.17/gb for internet user
$0.03/gb for tv users.
now i want to cry for my mommy.
please correct me if im wrong, if my math is wrong. or if you have better number
enlighten us... | |
| | | |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Only for bundles? The only mistake I see in your analysis is you didn't consider encoding efficiency. Transmitted HDTV is encoded as an MPEG2 Transport Stream while Netflix and many others use MPEG4 because it offers higher efficiency. So while a 1080i program over the air uses 16M bits/sec the same quality could be broadcast via MPEG4 at something like 4-8M bits/sec. | |
| | | |  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | Many early Blu-ray Disc titles are only 19mbs MPEG2.
No BD has a bitrate of 54mbs.
Most BDs are between 20mbs and 35mbs using MPEG4 or VC1.
said by ihavetaknow :i wonder how much bandwidth a tv digital tv subsciber is using they they watched 24x7x30 free hd on demand programs. that is they use bandwidth that others cannot share. they are watching their own channel... if we did the math is comcast favoring cable tv customers over internet users. for example how much bandwidth is used up by a 2 hr hd 1080p movie...??? when i googled i got regular DVD runs at about 6-8Mbps netfix hd is 8-10Mbps, so its not really hd near hd is about 20Mbps (experimental not available for streaming over web) blueray hd is about 54Mbps-72Mbps (not available for streaming over web) so lets take the 8-10Mbps and multiply it out for a month and see how much bandwidth cable tv people can use. keep in minnd when comcast customer pay for tv they are not using up bandwidth, comcast also has to pay for the content. the show/movie they are watching... i'm not deducting that from the bill. for the lowest 6Mbps: 30 day / month = 750.00 KB/s = 732.42 KiB/s = 45.00 MB/min = 6.00 Mbps = 2.70 GB/h - K M G bps: 6.00 Mbps B/s: 750.00 KB/s 0.75 MB/s B/min: 45.00 MB/min 0.05 GB/min iB/s: 732.42 KiB/s 0.72 MiB/s K M G T B/hr: 2.70 GB/h B/day: 64.80 GB/d 0.06 TB/d B/mon: 1.94 TB/m » web.forret.com/tools/bandwidth.a···nit=Mbps Day Week Month Year 6 Mbps = 64.8 GB 453.6 GB 1.94 TB 23.33 TB » blog.neds.com/blog/tabid/51329/b···art.aspxwow i'm being ripped, taken for a ride, I pay $62.95/m for internet than digital starter is $60.60/m. ok there is also $42.95/m for internet, 15MBps which would work. They get 1.94TB/month and I only get 256GB/month, plus comcast has to pay for what they watch and they dont have to pay for the websites i go to.. where is the government... know i know that comcast has to pay someone when it leaves their network, but they also get credits for traffic that they carry for others. i guess to be totally fair we have to estimate and calculate that, but the numbers are shocking. FCC/FTC take that. so lets do some more math taking the $42.95/m for internet vs $60.60/m for digital started 1.94TB = 1940GB $0.17/gb for internet user $0.03/gb for tv users. now i want to cry for my mommy. please correct me if im wrong, if my math is wrong. or if you have better number enlighten us... | |
| | | | | | comcast gets paid for content, they don't pay *for* it, exceptions being people like ESPN's deal. that's what advertising budgets are for | |
|
| |  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by IPPlanMan:Knowing Comcast, this will probably count against the 250GB usage cap... I would expect it to go against the 250GB usage cap.. not because "knowing Comcast" is the excuse, but rather, it would violate network neutrality.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
| | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Only for bundles? Please clear this up then....
Why does Comcast Phone Service not count against the cap, but Vonage does? | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Only for bundles? The cap applies to High Speed Internet service only. | |
| | | | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by IPPlanMan:Please clear this up then.... Why does Comcast Phone Service not count against the cap, but Vonage does? Because Comcast phone service is not VOIP! The voice packets NEVER go onto the public Internet and always remain on Comcast's private network.
Comcast Digital Voice is that, digital voice. Vonage is VOIP.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
| | | | | MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | As Rob said, Comcast's phone service isn't VoIP. If that's your only argument against Comcast wrongly throwing their services under the cap or violating network neutrality, the argument just doesn't work. | |
|
| | | | sorry, i cut n pasted the wrong one. i'm so blind. please disregard my duplicate posting, hopefully moderators will catch and kill it. sorry, i'll do 100 situps. | |
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by IPPlanMan:Knowing Comcast, this will probably count against the 250GB usage cap... Of course it will, if it didn't people would be cutting the cord in droves.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | Too late TV is already everywhere. This is just more stock-market-targeted PR pablum.
It's not like they will actually let you use it like you use TV. | |
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| this is already too late i urge customers to cut the cord.. or rather the cable alimony payments NOW, not later.. cable-tv is the triple play element that becomes less relevant as time goes on! think of all that money you can save each year and substitute with a few downloads here & there in addition to FREE broadcast tv! | |
| b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Only 22 content providers? quote:
said Burke, who noted the TV Everywhere has 22 content providers lined up.
What's the point of only a select few content providers?
That's not TV everywhere, thats just online video content.
I want to be able to watch EVERY channel I subscribe to from any (fast enough) internet connection in the world.
That would be TV everywhere. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | everytime something like this happens my area is exempt, or i am exempt. | |
| | | Any chance they offer to non CTV subs? I will never subscribe CTV again, as I use Hulu and all the other sites. Sometimes though I do wish Hulu would offer a premium version with more content from it's partners.
I've really enjoyed recently that Hulu added History Channel (modern marvels), National Geographic Channel (mars rover programs) and other news/documentary programs. I'd definitely pay them or another online provider for more content, especially content I find of value and enjoy. Hate, hate CTV biz model forcing me to pay for crap I did not watch. Such model is dying(slowy but sure to be a dinosaur in 10 yrs) and I hope Hulu or another online content provider offers a premium content online portal sans having to pay & sustain CTV's horrible biz model (horrible for us consumers not them). | |
|  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | TV Everywhere Except those areas and/or specific houses you choose not to serve of course! | |
| | | Pfffft Pfft, just like they promised us our usage meter... :/ | |
| | | So if I have Comcast CTV I can use this on Att DSL? Or would I also have to have their Comcast BB service as well | |
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Authentication. . . . . I smell DRM, low bit rates and proprietary players... | |
| | | What an average Comcastian is thinking right now... Comcastian: "My advertising online, let me show you it. Let me show you my online advertisements. They're pretty. I like caps, they provide fairness... and stuff." | |
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | sure Ban dialup, mandate anywhere POTS is servicable to provide dsl, end excuse's of a phone company that has been showered by public funds to do just that..... That or blow em up into smaller "real" independent providers to do the job... | |
|
| |
|
|
