 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
3 edits | What? I want to the the MPAA up there a#$ like they were the last pirate. This is Disgusting. This will be interesting to see if they actually get away with it.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|  | 
grapkoski
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Washington, DC
| Re: What? I think your extreme bias towards Cablevision shines through here, but anyways I honestly don't see the problem of Verizon, SBC or any phone company who want to use their EXISTING franchise agreements for video, if cable companies use their for telephones. Competition is what this country was based on and I think the cable companies deserve a good land based competitor. | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What? Additionally, this isn't an MPAA issue--SBC is refusing to sign FRANCHISE agreements with local bureaucracies.
This is quite different from the LICENSING agreements they will have separately signed with the content producers represented by MPAA
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | 
oneagreement
@verizon.n
| There should be ONE agreement per carrier who delivers last mile telecommunications services. As companies decide to get into each others market (ie telcos doing video, cablecos doing voip- Its the last mile "WIRE" that is at issue, not how many services are delivered over it.. If you want these two entities to compete: cablecos and telcos, then you'd better make it a streamlined process.. ONE (or none) franchise per provider. BUT, telcos must CHOOSE one pipeline, copper or fiber (TO THE HOME, not both), they can't be a permanent dual network, such as Verizon is now.. otherwise its like having it both ways, making dual revenue off of copper and fiber! I don't think telcos would like it if cablecos ran a separate and distinct network for just data and voice elements, which would trounce the current fiber rollout under the same terms (by reason of all that unleashed video spectrum) Albeit unnecessary as docsis 3.0 rolls out..
There needs to be an equitable balance between franchise fees and the amount of regulation on the services.. for example-- there are a load of crap taxes and fees on POTS service that need to be axed for telcos to compete..
Right now, I'd say that the taxes paid by telcos far outweighs the taxes paid by the cable companies (with last mile wires) Until this changes or becomes more equitable, video as currently delivered, is NOT profitable for telcos unless they just tell the franchise authorities to go to hell...
Personally, I think they get WAY too much from cell phone subscribers (greedy bastard$), last I heard that was 200+million of them!!!!!
Ultimately (if properly coerced, carrot and stick, like verizon's doing with fiber rollouts) when you precondition the costs saving being passed on to consumers (not a fleecing like in pennsylvania), its a win-win situation and competition can take place! | |
| jojodancer
join:2003-07-22
Burlington, VT | Similar to VOIP This is similar to VOIP providers going ahead using the status qou and avoiding any regulation by labeling themselves as a data service. I don't see how tv via dsl is much different. | |
| | 
winky
Turn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Similar to Business as Usual Indeed. This is one instance where SBC and I agree. What reason is there for a franchise, except to allow the parties involved, a method by which to protect their investment. Allowing a cable company a reasonable expectation to recoup their investment in an area and a governing body to make commercial services available to their constituents in such a manner as to protect the consumer. This begs the question: What will SBC receive from the franchising body? The answer of course is, nothing. No access rights, easements, or tax incentives that aren't already in place. Consequently if SBC receives nothing, where is the leverage to force it into a franchise agreement? How does adding a "feature" to an existing service make you a completely different enterprise? It doesn't of course unless you view the situation from the cable industry's perspective. The cable companies have a point of course. Being under their respective franchise agreements, they may face restrictions that SBC would avoid, but that's not SBC's problem because they're not receiving the consequent benefits the cable companies are. SBC may seem like the good guy in all of this, and in this case I feel that they are. Unfortunately SBC has used the same apples to oranges comparisons to battle the cable companies in their quest to offer data and voice services. Both industries would like you to think that their focus is you, the consumer, and that bringing better and more varied services is their goal, which it is, as long as you fall on the plus side of their bottom lines. Suffice to say, neither industry is looking out for the individual consumer, or the advancement of entertainment/communications in the country, and will not hesitate to malign each other at the first opportunity over injustices; be they real, perceived, or fabricated. We can only hope that eventually, in the end, it's the consumer that receives the benefit of better services at a fair price, When?, you may ask, will this happen? Perhaps it will only be after the FTC steps in and clarifies a few things, which is oh so long overdue. For now though, a good start would be for someone to step in and put these fussy toddlers down for a nap or an extended "time out" while mommy and daddy discuss a few parenting guidelines, until then it's pandemonium at the entertainment/communication household.
--
If you can break it,I can fix it.Of course, It'll cost ya' | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Similar to Business as Usual Franchise authorities should go the way side the same way out door antennas are.
The FCC should once and for all classify any provider that delivers void, video, an/or data as "broadband" providers and level the playing field. Eventually they will all use similar technogies like IPTV and VOIP to deliver services anyway.. the only thing that will divide these providers is the cable strung to deliver the services.
Maybe ALL companies should negotiate with an LFA, or they don't do it at all and they do in fact deal at the state level.
However, our law makers are not that bright in the first place and will continue to confuse the situation which will further delay advancements in technology - then claim they need to run muni systems because they can do it better. | |
| 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line as to what's considered TV? What if I watch live streaming video with RealPlayer? Is that TV?
I think what we're going to find is with high-speed networks becoming a reality, a lot of these local regulations like franchise agreements are going to be very cumbersome to enforce. I'd love to hate ILEC's on this because they ARE just motivated the profits, but the reality is local laws are poorly suited to regulating a national industry. | |
| | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Where do you draw the line? said by vpoko  :Where do you draw the line as to what's considered TV? What if I watch live streaming video with RealPlayer? Is that TV? I think what we're going to find is with high-speed networks becoming a reality, a lot of these local regulations like franchise agreements are going to be very cumbersome to enforce. I'd love to hate ILEC's on this because they ARE just motivated the profits, but the reality is local laws are poorly suited to regulating a national industry. Comcast customer might disagree with that statement, i kinda think its funny and wrong, that these large corps are balantly breaking a law, and dont care. When the courts catch up, most people dont give huge corps slack.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... | |
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Would you then care to answer my first question? | |
| | | silica
join:2004-05-20
Duluth, GA
| Re: Where do you draw the line? The answer is that most unbiased people would draw the line at is IP is an unregulated data service, while rf broadcast, including over fiber, is "regular TV" where local communities have some argument that they should get a franchise fee. Therefore, SBC which seeks to offer only IPTV probably does not need to get franchise approvals while Verizon plans to offer rf videofirst on FIOS, since IPTV isn't technically ready yet.
On an more editorial note: If people want fiber deployment quicker (more speed) and a competitive triple play environment (lower prices), it makes little sense to argue for socking the Bell companies with a franchise fee. Plus the cable companies can offer phone services on IP without any regulation. | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Where do you draw the line? Actually, as the FCC has just demonstrated, IP phone services will be subject to some regulation, if only on 9-1-1 issues.
Local franchises are a joke--initially they were the way that the cable companies got access to public rights of way, and then became the entirely toothless general regulation of cable TV we have today. They are a tax, and nothing worthwhile more.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Good for them This can only be a good thing. Franchise agreements exist to line the government's pockets and keep the old-boy network happy. They have no place in the modern age of multiple providers competing for business. Level the playing field and providers will have to compete on quality of service alone which can only benefit the consumer. | |
| |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Good for them said by DMS1 :This can only be a good thing. Franchise agreements exist to line the government's pockets and keep the old-boy network happy. They have no place in the modern age of multiple providers competing for business. Level the playing field and providers will have to compete on quality of service alone which can only benefit the consumer. Are you out of your mind? Without agreements, we wouldnt have service in our entire towm, internet access, Channel 8, Answer the phone in 3 mins or less. Plus numerous service standards. It wasnt until we had these in our towns agreements did we get them. DSL IPTV just isnt going to cut it, and will have a hard times competing again regular cable.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... | |
| | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: Good for them said by DaveNJ :Are you out of your mind? Without agreements, we wouldnt have service in our entire towm, internet access, Channel 8, Answer the phone in 3 mins or less. Plus numerous service standards. It wasnt until we had these in our towns agreements did we get them. DSL IPTV just isnt going to cut it, and will have a hard times competing again regular cable. Governments place isn't to regulate service if there is legitimate competition. Once competition is in place let the people vote with their wallets, not government mandate. | |
| | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Re: Good for them That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Once competition is established, there is no better way of forcing providers to continually improve service than customers leaving for competitors. | |
| | | | | | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
1 edit | Re: Good for them So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. | |
| | | | | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Good for them said by Foxbat121 :So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. I think because they dont exist on a local level, they cant have those rules applied, plus they serve an entire community instantly. Most cable companies wont serve an entire town without one. If Verizon does this, they will be alot of chaos resulting.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... | |
| | | | | | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: Good for them Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. | |
| | | | | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: Good for them said by JTRockville :Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. First, last time my cable company laid cables in my neighborhood, it's the Virginia Dept. Of Transportation in charge of granting them the right to do so. Not local community. I don't about know other states.
Second, I can't understand why paying extra $7/month by me is a compensation to my community. | |
| | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by JTRockville :... Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. Yes, God forbid that land and rights of way owned by the city and dedicated to public use be used to serve the public without the local hall of lazy bureaucrats getting a cut of the money flow.
(Oh yes--how would you like it if your next UPS delivery will have a $1 surcharge to fund a city "franchise fee" imposed on UPS? I mean, communities would be foolish to grant access to their streets without compensation, right?)
Check and see--what local fees do the electric, phone, water, and gas companies pay? Why should video be the only service to be taxed?
And lets be realistic--if the city collects $100,000 in "franchise fees", do you not think that this is directly passed on to the subscribers? It's a damn tax--call it that.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by KoolMoe :First, I believe Public Access TV is critical. There would be no PEG if there were no required franchise agreements. "Public Access" is a joke. It solely benefits various community groups with various political agendas, groups which then use their grassroots power to preserve their gravy train and to support those politicians and cable companies who have "bought" their support with free airtime. It has become part of the "good ol' boy" network, where backs are scratched with votes, money, and airtime. It is worsened by the decisionmakers on who gets choice airtime--usually an unelected, appointed "board" or "commission" of 2nd level political hacks whose sole qualification is that they take direction well from the existing power base.
In a competitive environment, "public access" is no more justified than forcing a newspaper to publish political views.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Good for them Maybe in your area. Around here, it's fun.
There are some political shows, sure. There are also completely non-political shows too! I don't see how stations with such low viewership can seriously effect any political discussion.
One of my favorite "non-politicals" is two local guys with a cooking show. Most every recipe involves beer. They're the first ones I learned about deep-frying an entire turkey for Thanksgiving years ago. Haven't tried it yet, but it was a funny episode.
PEG is a great way for citizens to get some air time - for whatever reason. It doesn't hurt anything, IMO, and is a public benefit. Newspapers have Letters to the Editor and OpEd pages, cable has Public Access. I think it's an important part of any, or at least my, local cable service.
I also agree with JT - communities deserve compensation for access to fast-tracked Rights of Way issues. Not everyone can use them and they must be regulated - compensation is fair.
As it relates to 'taxes' - yeah, I'm sure if cable companies didn't have to pay it, we'd all see reductions in our bills. Cable companies will surely do that...uh-huh.
KM | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | competition is good, and if it takes alittle pushing and shoving to get it into a town then so be it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
Cat Food
@cox.net
| Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore Franchise agreements were originally established because of physical limitiations. I.e., municipalities couldn't have 100 companies stringing lines through town because they didn't have enough space and/or right-of-way and cable co.s weren't going to invest to do it unless they had exclusivity via a franchise. With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run. | |
| | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore said by Cat Food:
Franchise agreements were originally established because of physical limitations. I.e., municipalities couldn't have 100 companies stringing lines through town because they didn't have enough space and/or right-of-way and cable co.s weren't going to invest to do it unless they had exclusivity via a franchise. With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run.
Ditto.:D
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
| | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| said by Cat Food:
With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run.
How do you figure that infrastructure isn't an issue anymore? The only technology in your list that doesn't require last-mile infrastructure is satellite. | |
| | | visguy
join:2005-04-28
Wichita Falls, TX | Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore said by visguy :The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? Copper won't do it. Fiber will need to be run and that will entail digging everything back up and putting it back in the ground. | |
| | | | |
Fatal Vector
@sfldmi.ameritech
| Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore
Really? Why is that? It's not like fiber cant be strung from poles just like wires and I'll bet you'll find that the fiber backbone allready exists underground in mant metro areas, which is, of course, what carries signals, voice, etc from CO to CO, etc. The only copper is from the CO to the subscribers home in such a case.
The reason they are burying fiber in many places is because local regulations require utilities to be buried on new construction. They cant do this in metro areas and SBC allready has access to the same poles that the cable company uses. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by moonpuppy :said by visguy :The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? Copper won't do it. Fiber will need to be run and that will entail digging everything back up and putting it back in the ground. Not a 100% true.. in many places, there are conduits in the ground - a simple pull of a new wire through existing conduits would avoid tearing up the streets in many cases. | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore Understood, but this is not the case everywhere. There are still many places that will need to have fiber buried.
Conduits for wiring is a relatively new idea. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore Hey.. I have been called to the carpet many times for making blanket statements... just keeping up with the spirit of the BBR way. | |
| VansHSI
join:2005-01-29
America | This could get juicy You know this is going to end up in the courts... of course pushed by the cable companies and then by local governments who want $$$$$. | |
| Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Way to go SBC Franchise agreements are obsolete & pointless in todays era. Remember, the Bells aren't against franchise agreements- they just want to have state agreements and not to have to deal with mom & pop municipalities who will basically try to do everything possible (since they are in bed with the cable companies) to prevent and make their lives hard.
Franchise agreements are due for an overhaul, or be eliminated totally. | |
|
broadbanderdemander
@66.100.x.x
| Local governments and what people seem to miss I don't understand how people in this forum can treat local governments like their profit-grubbing whores bent on making money. That's what the other side is, the private companies. Local governments simply want enough money to provide for simple town services and escalating costs. Eliminating franchising hurts a local government's pockets, and guess what, everybody, when a local government is hurt, than YOU, the citizen are hurt. Potholes, sewage overages, poor education, lack of resources, these things are what happens when local governments get squeezed out of the money intake picture by too much privitization. SBC aren't going to teach your kids how to read. People in this country are very strange, when asked about taxes, they say they hate taxes and government takes all of their money. Yet when asked about schools and road maintenance, they say they want the best schools with no expense spared and safe, easy to drive on roads. Really, does it take much to understand that franchise agreements are one of a series of ways in which a local government can receive some much needed funding that neither raises taxes on individual members of the community nor forsakes the services of the city? | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Off the topic of.. whether franchise agreements are right or wrong, the telcos again are ignoring the laws that are on the books and using strong arm tactics as they always do. This will go to court and the local governments will win. The laws are on the books and have been for years.
So if the precident is set that it is ok for the telcos to just up and break the laws and get away with it, where does it stop. I may feels that a spped limit of 25 MPH is too slow in a residential neighborhood. Does this give me the right to speed and break the law before it gets changed?? I think not..
What if I feel that I think I should be able to setup a new business in a neighborhood that is zoned for residential whithout having to go through a zoning review process and get it changed? Will I be shut down?? Damn right I will be because it is against the laws and regulations of where I am conducting business and until someone get s the law changed, I will be found guilty.
Telcos are getting worse than judges these days. They think they are above everyone else and can do whatever the hell they want. It is about time somone put them in their place..
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | cptmiles
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN
|  Statewide Franchise
| |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| What do the local governments need to "authorize"? What do the local governments need to "authorize"? In the case of cable franchise agreements, there is a matter of the cable company requiring a physical presense (cables, equipment) in the town.
For streaming television, the network is already there. Hell, it could be the cable company's network that you use to stream the TV. What if a company independant from the Telco's wants to set up a "TV broadcast center" and broadcast television over the internet... do they also need a franchise agreement? What about when I watch a live sports game with RealVideo... does the NFL need a franchise agreement?
Franchise agreements aren't about providing TV, they're about laying infrastructure in towns, which nobody is doing. | |
| | 
rkrocha
join:2000-09-23
Garland, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: What do the local governments need to "authori vpoko- you nailed it...I agree the RBOCs were wasting their time trying to 'avert' the franchise thing in the first place. They should have been planning to what they say they are going to do now. Just get the bandwidth to the home and then start offering the service. Let the people decide if their decision/investment is worth it. If the cable companies start losing subs hand over fist then they can fight back like chumps and cry 'franchise'; or step up like men and offer better prices, better content, better customer service..ie A better product. Word. | |
| | |
anon5
@rr.com | Re: What do the local governments need to "authori I believe that I should be able to just Take your woman as often and whenever I feel like it. If you dont like me having my way with her, you could just "step up like a man", and try and stop me.
Makes a lot of sense, Huh?
WORD | |
| | | | cptmiles
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN
| Re: What do the local governments need to "authori So you are saying that telephone companies should step up and not allow cable companies and Internet companies to provide voice services as well? Voice is regulated and taxed by the governing bodies very similar to cable franchise agreements, just differently, but no one seems to mind that those agreements/promises are being compromised. | |
| dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| And They'll Get Content Where??? ....of cutting off nose to spite face?
I'm not a lawyer, so if I'm totally wrong, chime in...
but it seems the very smug SBC could have a problem.
If SBC says they're just a 'data service', then does any cable channel actually have to deal with them at all? Some would, but these days, many companies that own cable channels (and content, for that matter), also own cable companies. Who says they'd at all have to provide channels to just a 'data service'. (For example I wouldn't think Time Warner would be excited to offer HBO on 'data service' channels.) That could severely limit content on 'just another data service'. I know they HAVE to deal with cable/dbs companies, but wasn't that specifically mandated previously? For that matter, content owners licensing might not permit distribution over 'data services'. (And SAG and everyone else would likely chime in... I don't think there's a 'data service' category for determining residuals. ) 
...just a thought. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: And They'll Get Content Where??? Let me give you all a real life situation where this is already taking place.
Sacramento California. A company called Surewest, previously called Roseville Telephone located in Placer county. They have, however, expanded into Sacramento County to service the communities of Sacramento and other areas as well.
In the Sacramento County area, they are a 100% fiber network. In order to run these networks, they are having to negotiate with the franchise autority (which in this area happens to be a county authority, not city like many other places - 'The Sacramento County Cable Commission') to operate. The LFA gets involved with their business on a daily basis.
Now, if they are all data driven, digital, etc.. AND they are also primarily a telephone company, and the video is not necessarily RF to the home, rather all 1s and 0s, why does the LFA get involved.
I know many of the answers to these issues but there is such a mixed bag of 'issues' and 'facts' here that completely tied many arguments here together.
We have a telephone company offering video, they were required to get permission from the LFA, but they are not a "cable company", rather a phone company offering all services as broadband.
... discuss. | |
| | |
Fatal Vector
@sfldmi.ameritech
| Re: And They'll Get Content Where???
Most likely because their core business was being a telco. Either that or they just went and did it like idiots. But then, California has a "code" and laws for everything under the sun, so it's not surprising at all. Sacremento, being the capital has some of the screwiest of them all, as well as a overbearing government, both county and local.
They were most likely simply told that they would have to pay government extortion to operate in Sacremento county, simple as that. No government entity in CA will ever foreswear a source of revenue such as this. | |
| | | |
lookingwestandsmilin
@verizon.n | Re: And They'll Get Content Where??? HAHAHA!! Move out of California now, while its alrady too late! There are still a few democratic vestiages of the country left... Say, if a few million of you moved to OHIO we'd be in a very different place, now -wouldn't we-! | |
| | | | | christij
join:2005-01-16
Central Islip, NY | Re: And They'll Get Content Where??? Perhaps if the phone companies stopped fighting municipal owned wireless network then they'd get less resistance on the video front. | |
| | | |
|
|
SBC's Answer to TV Franchise Hangup: Don't Seek Any
