Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category Bill Could Kill Off Municipal Broadband Bans
Incumbents would no longer have their cake and eat it, too...
(old news - 03:11PM Thursday Aug 02 2007)
tags: competition · business · alternatives · legislation · Politics · AT&T · Verizon
For many years, we were one of the only websites talking about the fact that phone companies were writing, lobbying for and passing state laws that banned your town and city from wiring itself with broadband, even if those same companies refused to serve you. What people in those communities wanted was deemed irrelevant.

Then came Philly's Wi-Fi project and their very public run-in with Verizon, after which the mainstream media attention forced these companies to quiet their efforts somewhat (and play dumb before Congress). Yet, some states (such as North Carolina) are still passing these bills at the behest of the phone companies.

A bipartisan bill proposed this week by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) would overrule these state-level bans (14 so far) on municipal broadband deployment. Dubbed the Community Broadband Act of 2007, the bill also contains safeguards to ensure municipalities cannot discriminate against private providers.
"It is no surprise that building out broadband to such areas is a low priority for cable and telephone service providers, but that reality does not make broadband any less essential to the lives of unserved rural residents. If the commercial broadband providers are not willing to deploy in particular areas, local governments should be able to step in and fill the gap."
Here are links to the bill itself, Boucher's floor statement and the press release (all in pdf format).

Related:
  1. Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
  2. Wednesday Evening Links
  3. Here Comes The Connected Nation Sales Pitch
  4. New FTC Boss: Tough On Broadband's Duopoly?
  5. Cable: Let Us Experiment With Pricing Or The Internet Explodes
  6. Lawmaker Unveils Anti-Metered Billing Law
  7. The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
  8. Verizon: Cut Your Landline To Save Money
Forums » Bill Could Kill Off Municipal Broadband Bans
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:

Big government, I'm here to help you.

What happened to state rights?
chemaupr

join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

The state right to what... submit to whatever the market says you can get. Even if your local government will like to serve you in the absence of a willing provider.

The sate in this case is not looking in their citizens best interest.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves.

Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none

join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by Maxo See Profile :

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves.
But the state has the power to tell a City it cannot run itself?
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by Zaber See Profile :

said by Maxo See Profile :

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
I agree. This is a decision that states should be allowed to make. The federal government has no place telling states how they can and cannot run themselves.
But the state has the power to tell a City it cannot run itself?
That depends on the state's constitution. The federal constitution gives the feds limited power and puts all other powers on the state. The state then gets to decide what remaining powers are theirs, and what goes to the local level.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide

»myspace.com/mlsquad

ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

When one level of government abdicates its responsibility to the People, I am happy that another can step-up and do the right thing.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX

The US Constitution gives the feds powers over issues related to interstate commerce, a BROAD definition which in today's world would most certainly include the building of data networks, as it does telecommunications and transportation.

I have no problem with this law. My state is run by idiot blowhards.

Besides, in this day and age the idea that any of the states is somehow "independent" of all the others, that they somehow stand alone, is complete baloney.

wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by emptywig See Profile :

The US Constitution gives the feds powers over issues related to interstate commerce, a BROAD definition which in today's world would most certainly include the building of data networks, as it does telecommunications and transportation.
This is true. Interstate commerce act has been interpreted by the supreme court such that any and all activities fall under it's umbrella. If you eat with a fork in stead of a spork it is regulatable by the fed under interstate commerce because you have affected everyone in a very minute way because you have furthered the cause of spork lovers everywhere.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide

»myspace.com/mlsquad
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
I'm not sure, this actually looks more to me like an issue that could be argued as interstate commerce.
I honestly think it should be decided by the people.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by xrobertcmx See Profile :

I'm not sure, this actually looks more to me like an issue that could be argued as interstate commerce.
I honestly think it should be decided by the people.
The way the Supreme Court currently defines interstate commerce pretty much anything and everything falls under it. If you grow a tomato bush and eat the only tomato it produces, that could be regulated by the feds because you didn't buy the tomato at the store, which conceivably may have come from another state, and thus has affected interstate commerce and is now regulateable.
jester121

join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
It's a delicate balance between respecting the rights of the several states to govern themselves, and saving the citizens of those states from the greedy, corrupt, or inept state legislatures.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by jester121 See Profile :

It's a delicate balance between respecting the rights of the several states to govern themselves, and saving the citizens of those states from the greedy, corrupt, or inept state legislatures.
Then amend the US Constitution to allow for the Federal Government to exert such authority. If this becomes law it will be overturned.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by pnh102 See Profile :

If this becomes law it will be overturned.
Unfortunately it won't. The 10th Amendment hasn't been enforced since the 1930s.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.

-- Ernestine

reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by Jim Gurd See Profile :

said by pnh102 See Profile :

If this becomes law it will be overturned.
Unfortunately it won't. The 10th Amendment hasn't been enforced since the 1930s.
No kidding. Would be nice if our congress critters actually read the constitution. Things would be better if they all acted like Dr. No.
--
My pbase gallery

Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by reub2000 See Profile :

Things would be better if they all acted like Dr. No.
Dr. No is getting my support.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.

-- Ernestine

reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by Jim Gurd See Profile :

said by reub2000 See Profile :

Things would be better if they all acted like Dr. No.
Dr. No is getting my support.
I figured that from your posts.
--
My pbase gallery
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Why amend the Constitution when they can simply create a law and let that law be challenged? If it stands, then that is the way it is. If it falls, then time to try another angle if need be.

John Galt
What...me panic??
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by Skippy25 See Profile :

Why amend the Constitution when they can simply create a law and let that law be challenged? If it stands, then that is the way it is. If it falls, then time to try another angle if need be.
To all posters and not just Skippy25 See Profile, the Federal Government already has exerted its authority over all things related to communications...even down to individual pieces of property. This is an example of that:

»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
--
A is A

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
·Millenicom
·WildBlue

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
Died when the civil war ended. Now a days, the Commerce Clause is used to provide almost unlimited federal power over the states.
--
RIP my baby Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07

Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by tim_k See Profile :

Now a days, the Commerce Clause is used to provide almost unlimited federal power over the states.
Sad but true.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.

-- Ernestine

BF69

join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
what happened to the state doing what good for the PEOPLE not the corporations. As far as I'm converned as soon as a state start working for the corporation they lose their rights. government by the PEOPLE of the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by BF69 See Profile :

what happened to the state doing what good for the PEOPLE not the corporations.
It is not constitutional for the federal government to interfere with the states outside of the powers granted to it by the constitution. The state is free to make dumb laws within the boundaries of its authorities as granted by the constitution. It doesn't make it moral or right, but it is the way the laws for this country are written.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide

»myspace.com/mlsquad

LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities?

Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law.

Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by LiamJunket See Profile :

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities?

Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law.

Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional.
The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by batterup See Profile :

The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply.
They did the same thing with the 55 mph speed limit.

While I don't particularly like the method employed here by Congress, and think it is more than just a bit of a Crisco coated slope, it may be necessary.

All in all, other than the potential for bad future karma, what harm does it cause if because of the bill, munis are able to create their networks in underserved areas? If the telcos or whomever in big-comm aren't willing to deploy then I don't see the harm in a muni project.

I see this as helping level the field a tad, but I do see the point and largely agree that the move has some Constitutional issues.

K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by GlobalMind See Profile :



All in all, other than the potential for bad future karma, what harm does it cause if because of the bill, munis are able to create their networks in underserved areas? If the telcos or whomever in big-comm aren't willing to deploy then I don't see the harm in a muni project.

Take Pennsylvania for example. Verizon must provide DSL if 50 people agree to signe up for 1 year. This is any place in the state. Verizon did this because Pennsylvania passed a no municipal broadband except in Philadelphia law. Towns had one year to start broadband before the law took effect. A state should be able to make this type of deal if they chose. Municipalities will not serve the great unwashed and TPC surely won't without an incentive.

Why do you think government controlled, tax supported broadband is better then free enterprise?

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by batterup See Profile :

Why do you think government controlled, tax supported broadband is better then free enterprise?
I am not sure my point was clear. This isn't about locking out the free enterprise "market controlled" providers from providing service. The point is that if they refuse to, then the municipality should have the right to step up and provide their own. I see nothing wrong with that if the citizenry of that muni is OK with it. I would expect such a thing to go to a town vote before any policy moves forward.

However, the anti-muni contingent seems to think that this is always going to be some power grab by a government. I think such characterization on a broad scale is rather incorrect.

The telcos and other providers simply want to have it all their way, all the time, which is to say they'll decide whether or not to deploy and also they'll lobby for a legal device which makes the municipality entirely dependent on the telco, because they're forbidden from providing access themselves.

In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well.
The DSL is provided by a business not the government.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by batterup See Profile :

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well.
The DSL is provided by a business not the government.
Correct but the "deal" was made such that it requires Verizon to act. Thus eliminating Verizon's "right" to select where it provides service. That is indeed government control of commerce.

The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area. If the aim in the PA deal was to have the state say "fine we won't try to offer any service" but in kind require Verizon to offer service, then the muni offering wouldn't be necessary.

So I say again, in a case where all of the commerical providers do not wish to offer service to a particular area then I see no issue with a muni project. If the project is there to undercut the commercial provider then yes I have an issue with that.

This is all a matter of intentions.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area.
The towns will cherry pick and not provide service to rural areas. Keep up the good work 18th and dropping.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by batterup See Profile :

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area.
The towns will cherry pick and not provide service to rural areas. Keep up the good work 18th and dropping.
Well we know Verizon would cherry pick unless forced to do otherwise, and you're saying the towns will too - presumably for the same reason as Verizon, because they can.

So it sounds like we're just all screwed.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

Well we know Verizon would cherry pick unless forced to do otherwise, and you're saying the towns will too - presumably for the same reason as Verizon, because they can.

So it sounds like we're just all screwed.
Yes, Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch.

BF69

join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

said by batterup See Profile :

said by LiamJunket See Profile :

said by batterup See Profile :

What happened to state rights?
Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities?

Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law.

Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional.
The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply.
yes back in the 80's the federal government did this to get states to raise the drinking age to 21. But answer this. How is the federal government withholding FEDERAL dollars encroaching on states rights? The dollars belong to the FEDERAL government they can give out the money or not any way they choose. Show me where in the Constitution that it says the states are entitled to ANY federal dollars. Also if a state takes FEDERAL dollars, show me how it is unconstituional for the federal government to dictate HOW those FEDERAL dollars are spent. It's their money.

If the states want to cry "states rights" then fine, then stop begging for federal money. If state and local governments didn't get federal money they have to raise taxes. This way they can get the money and keep local/state taxes lower and let the citeznes be all mad of the federal government for higher taxes. Nice little scam there.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by BF69 See Profile :

yes back in the 80's the federal government did this to get states to raise the drinking age to 21. But answer this. How is the federal government withholding FEDERAL dollars encroaching on states rights?

I never said it was.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest

it should be an option for states: don't want to be bossed around by the federal government? don't want to accept the money they bring in? then federal taxes collected in that state should be proportionally lower. otherwise, the state is being punished by being taxed at the same level AND not getting any benefit.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
how could a law prevent wifi? just market it as for police and fire and accidently leave them open....
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

Because a successful muni project won't be free for the users...
DemonChicken

join:2006-10-15
Boon, MI
·Alltel Axess

Ok then how do i get my place to wire broadband. All i have to do is call ATT after i get it planned and say were wiring broadband and then they will do it for us.

Can someone give me some information on how to get this started? Self wiring brodband to a community? Instant message me or something.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Big government, I'm here to help you.

said by DemonChicken See Profile :

Ok then how do i get my place to wire broadband. All i have to do is call ATT after i get it planned and say were wiring broadband and then they will do it for us.

Can someone give me some information on how to get this started? Self wiring brodband to a community? Instant message me or something.
First move to Pennsylvania.
bogey780

join:2004-03-19
Here

North Carolina

Yet some states (such as North Carolina), are still passing these bills at the behest of the phone companies.
North Carolina will just have to make do with the three hundred and fifty million dollars AT&T pledged to budget over the next couple years to wire up the entire state with fiber and VRADs.

pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ

Re: North Carolina

$350M for the entire state of NC ( at least where AT&T provides service) sounds a little underfunded.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
$350m will probably do a couple of the larger towns, or maybe Charlotte. Not to mention AT&T isn't really doing FTTH.

xerxes3642

join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline

States rights

are just something the feds recognize when the state wants the same thing that they do. Just look at the medical marijuana issue. Many states passed it, but the feds "don't recognize" the state's laws. Go figure, you're only as free as they let you be.

See 6 replies to this post
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8

A win for local representation...

A law that would preserve local representation... Wow, what a change. Instead of handing power to the state and federal governments, it leaves the power to decide whether or not muni projects should exist where it belongs... At the local level.

Of course telco and cable guys will find some way to spin this in a negative light despite it actually being good for consumers... Just goes to show, they don't care about the consumer.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.

See 13 replies to this post
Chewyrobbo

join:2005-04-12
Tacoma, WA

Click! Network

I don't remember if the article link was from around here, but I read an article on the discussion of TCI days, when Tacoma, WA decided to build a cable network of their own. They are still up and running, i don't know how they are doing though. The incumbents don't want an unprofitable area to have service because they are a business out for profit. Well wouldn't it be good for the incumbents to let these municipalities build broadband networks, so if they start struggling, they can buy an already built network? I also think about the businesses it would help if this law did not pass. They city would purchase service to have fiber etc. installed, they'd have to connect to another provider, probably use their utility guys do some last mile stuff. I think this is a bad idea of law.

sousademiami

join:2003-02-04
Miami, FL

Profitable!

I would like to see this law passed only if it required municipal broadband to be profitable (even by only pennies) to ensure that the taxpayers don't have to pay the bill, the customers do.
--
OASAASLLS

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Re: Profitable!

...What?

That all depends on who uses the network, if the county decides to create a muni-WiFi network within Miami Beach the money to build that network will come from your taxes, whether or not the network becomes profitable is after all the money that was used to make the network has been recovered, even then you have re-occuring costs that still is being charged to the tax payers, what makes you think that tourists will use the service or in locations that don't have tourists much at all?
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942.
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8


1 edit
The problem is, how soon does the network have to operate profitably ? Networks require such a large CAPEX that it takes years before the network shows a profit.

A better requirement would be that it at least breaks even
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.

aliebe

join:2001-09-02
Blairstown, NJ


1 edit

Re: Profitable!

I've read this whole thing, it makes me want to barf.

State's rights? Jesus people, that state's haven't had that level of authority in years. Plus, do you honestly think your level lifestyle would be half of what it is if it wasn't for interstate commerce?

As for profitability...that is what taxes are for. We pay taxes to our local, state and federal governments so that they can provide us with certain services to protect and enrich our freedom to live our lives the fullest extent allowed by law (read police, fire, public schools, etc.) If the local yokels decide to pay taxes to support a municipal broadband network, so be it.

This is the very basics of democracy and capitalism. The residents opposing of a muni-network are more than capable or organizing and forming their own township. If they choose not to move, then they must accept the laws and taxes as voted upon by the majority of the residents.
gordonjones

join:2002-09-02
Framingham, MA

Can FIOS Break Cable's Stranglehold

on a related note -story on Verizon's attempt to break into towns:

Can FIOS Break Cable's Stranglehold? (from ElectronicHouse.com)
Forums » Bill Could Kill Off Municipal Broadband Bans


Sunday, 05-Jul 09:00:50 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9.5 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.