grapkoski
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Washington, DC
| reply to packetscan
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
| 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! |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to grapkoski
My Extreme Bios to Cablevision? Where did i write that?
graposki:
I don't want to see any company not pay their fare share.
This is the equivalent of Mobil deciding they no longer need there pump stations and will deliver to your home.
calvioper:
How is an mpaa issue? Why let someone get something for nothing, off your back? Eg SBC doesn't pay there fare share and in the long run Rolls the customer over. Since now the Town isn't getting the tax revenue therefore making your taxes higher. Where did you think the franchise fee's went?
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
