 |  | dcurrey
join:2004-06-29 | Re: Tough one Did the cable companies have to get a second franchise to offer phone service? | |
| | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: Tough one Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. | |
| | | | 
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Tough one said by JTRockville  :Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. If that's the case, then Verizon shouldn't have to jump through the cable franchising hoops.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Tough one Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet.
Cable franchise agreements often fund public TV, ensure local airtime for political events, and are starting to be used to ensure quality broadband service (see Montgomery County, Maryland).
A reworking of regulation makes more sense than a removal of regulation.
Unless people really enjoy having less power in their lives and local communities, then by all means....approve and enjoy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Tough one said by djrobx :Does satellite TV need a franchise agreement? ... About the only thing the franchise agreement does is ensure a cheap locals only tier. Bad example.
The franchise agreement between a city and utility is a mutual benefit for both sides. Typically with cable service, the city/town will get added revenue to help fund public interest television, an outlet to air those channels, and the say over the most basic rate tier (aka "lifeline") of cable. The cable company in exchange for their money, bandwidth, and a little bit of oversight, get the use of city right of ways as well as usually a monopoly on cable service.
Satellite doesn't need the right of way nor the monopolistic power that cable companies need/want, so they don't have to agree to pay the local government for the franchise fee.
Verizon's deal is that they already have the right of way with the FIOS lines providing the telephone service. They now want to add a service on top of that line that the original franchise agreement didn't mention. There is where the problem, or at least dispute, lies.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. | |
| | | | | | | | griff1013
join:2002-01-10
Virginia Beach, VA | Re: Tough one Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Tough one said by griff1013 :Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Which local resources does satellite companies use? Roads? Right of ways? Telephone poles? Satellite companies don't use them, so they shouldn't have to pay for them.
Likewise, Verizon already is paying for them, so should they have to pay AGAIN to use the exact thing that they are already using? It adds no extra infrastructure burden to add CATV to the FIOS service...it's not like it will require another cable other then the one already being provided for telephone service.
Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. Hopefully they don't RUN the city council meetings, rather they just provide the televising of the meeting. I'm sure they would ditch it if they could, but it's part of their franchise agreement.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Tough one Those so called "public access channels" are just so much fluff to buy support for the cable company. Every little whiny interest group gets to produce its own cable show, and often the local cable company runs some "local newsmakers" show which just produces puff pieces about local politicos. It's just free publicity and fawning media about those politicians and interest groups with the pull to get on the show.
Here in Marin County, they pre-empt the last 5 minutes of each half hour of Headline News with a local blurb about this or that local politico. The @$$-kissing is so extreme that you can hardly hear the conversation for the smooching.
Local franchises don't benefit consumers--they keep out competition and increase the costs of distributing video services. They do help the local power structure, and since the cable companies get to pass along the costs and have fewer competitors, they play along.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Tough one Again though, you're blaming the politicians for the failure of the agreements....
When Comcast had to go around forging new franchise agreements with each AT&T Broadband market, many towns used the leverage to get areas upgraded, schools and municipal buildings wired, etc......
Some just used it for a money-grab. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Tough one To get areas upgraded, competition without the inhibitions of local franchises would be a better incentive. The only reason Comcast/ATT had to be leveraged into upgrades is that they felt relatively "safe" from competition because of their franchise agreements.
As for the wiring of school or muni buildings, the franchise agreement just serves as a back-door tax increase. These are worthy expenses, but they should be paid for through traditional means, not hidden costs buried in cable rates.
I remain convinced that franchise agreements serve only local political greed and to limit competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. | |
| | | | | | |
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Tough one said by insomniac84 :It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP?
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | | | | | | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Tough one I can assure you that neither the RCN "digital phone" I have, or the Comcast digital phone I had is "voice over IP". It modulates a digital signal over the coax and is terminated at the CMTS, where it is carried onto the phone network. Also the cable companies have direct CO connects for 911 service etc, and you have to pay similar line charges and fees to the ones verizon charge.
Where Verizons claims really fall down is this - although they have a "phone franchise agreement", they could notionally offer TV+Internet+VOIP over FIOS, and not be collecting any revenue for the franchise agreement they have.
noz
| |
| | | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by yock :How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP? It's 2 different technologies. They are not the same. Someone above posted what the differences are:
VOIP uses data packets going through your ISP.
TW's digital phone uses reserved bandwidth on their cable facilities for a seperate avenue for phone service. In other words, if you have RoadRunner service with time warner and digital phone service, they are totally seperate. | |
| | | | | | | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Digital phone is what most of us have from the telcos. The call travels up the loop to a point that it is converted to digital and is routed to its destination via fiber trunks or copper T1s. The phone switch is all digital now and can pass the four streams of ATM. It can even port an analog signal but that just takes up lot of bandwidth that you can route other things with it. The next step in telco world is to only allocate the bandwidth for your phone line when you pick up the line right now that bandwidth is allocated all of the time. That is one of the gains with the packet based network that Verizon and others are deploying. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Tough one TV over IP isn't even deployed. | |
| | | | | | | | 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
| Re: Tough one But this is a great point for discussion.
In theory since IPTV is a data service, it would be regulated in a similar fashion to VOIP.
If it's not a cable service (as traditional Comcast offerings are), then it's product is not subject to franchise fees anyway. I know our franchises here only generate revenues on "cable tv services" and not data services (such as VOIP or internet services). IPTV would be excluded by its very nature of transport.
In addition, VOIP services don't pay local telecommunications taxes either. In our area, the local govs can impose up to a 6% telco tax on traditional phone landline and cellular phone services. But offerings such as Vonage are exempt because of their "data service" classification by the FCC. Which also brings up another problem - they also don't pay into 911 funding.
If I was Comcast, SBC, or Verizon I'd be shooting for the triple play via ip just because I could avoid all of the franchise requirement payments and telco taxes, except for maybe pole attachment fees.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| If you want to get technical, it currently appears that Verizon is NOT going to do TV over IP. I know that you didn't say that this was, but I just wanted to make that distinction. Another branch of this thread started to compare VoIP and digital phone service that some cable companies provide...that too is different in the same way to what TV over IP is to Verizon's planned "cable" TV.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. | |
| | | | | stoli412
join:2003-02-12
Boston, MA
·Verizon FIOS
edit:
April 21st, @10:50AM
| I agree. I believe the main original purpose of cable franchise agreements was to secure rights of way in cities and towns. Since Verizon already has the rights of way (assuming they're laying the fiber in the same conduits and on the same poles they already use for copper), why should they have to obtain another agreement?
At the same time, I do think Verizon should pay some kind fee to local governments. It should be a uniform fee for anyone who is providing telecommunications service using public rights of way. This money would be used to fund public access and other things of that nature. | |
| | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 21st, @11:06AM
| Re: Tough one quote:
I agree. I believe the main original purpose of cable franchise agreements was to secure rights of way in cities and towns. Since Verizon already has the rights of way (assuming they're laying the fiber in the same conduits and on the same poles they already use for copper), why should they have to obtain another agreement
Because cable franchise agreements don't just cover right of way issues, and phone franchise agreements alone won't be enough to cover all TV service provision issues.
A good primer:
»www.democraticmedia.org/ddc/CCCIntro.php
A hybrid agreement is probably needed that adds some regulation and removes other duplicate provisions..... | |
| | | | | | |
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Tough one I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Anyhow, making Verizon pay franchising is probably the legal thing to do here. Whether or not it's right is a question for the pundits, because quite frankly I just don't care enough to argue it.
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued. VOIP is essentially a loophole here, and no amount of disdain for Verizon will make me argue that they must pay some regulatory fee when VOIP providers aren't required to pay similar fees just because they aren't yet regulated to do so. Verizon is simply fighting for equal regulatory rights in this case and I don't blame them one iota.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 21st, @11:22AM
| Re: Tough one quote:
I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Ask a local town lawyer then. I'll bet you'll find it less biased than your local bell's PR man, or free market conservatives who think deregulation cures cancer and prevents earthquakes. Franchise agreements, when written and enforced properly, are designed to aid you.
quote:
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued.
There's definately some leveling of the playing field that needs to occur between cable and phone providers, particularly concerning line-sharing and USF. Telecom laws are going to be re-written before year's end, and given the current political climate, I'll bet near total deregulation will be the end result......
That doesn't necessarily mean a bell who offers cable shouldn't have to adhere to a franchise agreement that actually addresses what they're deploying (video service).....and yeah, vice-versa for cable companies offering phone service.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT
| said by JTRockville :Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. Here in CT, Comcast had to apply for a CLEC aggrement. | |
| | | | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: Tough one Is Comcast providing digital phone or VoIP in CT? | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Tough one Correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe I just read an article that "Digital Phone" is a marketing buzzword used by cable companies for their VOIP.
In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. | |
| | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Tough one said by Skippy25 :Correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe I just read an article that "Digital Phone" is a marketing buzzword used by cable companies for their VOIP. In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. Here in NC, Time Warner offers digital phone service and it is NOT VOIP. I am not sure about Cox, Comcast, etc. | |
| | | | | | | mishaq
Premium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX
clubs:
| No, I believe digital phone is different. VoIP uses internet data to make the phone call, while digital phone through a cable company just uses some reserved bandwidth on their cable set for phone conversations (another service provided by the cable company, so Im assuming you use their equipment or something)
--
Damn you FCC! | |
| | | | | | | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| said by Skippy25 :In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. Most people have heard of the words 'voice' and 'over', but what the hell is IP? Does it have anything to do with watersports? I hope not. Digital Phone sounds better for most people.
Usually the cable companies has complete control over the equipment from the customer's premises to the POTS interface with their version of VoIP service. Vonage and the 10,000 other providers usually depend on Sprint, AT&T, Level(3), UU Net and whatever else is in between the customer and the POTS interface.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
| | | | | | Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT | Digital Phone and they just recently launched Digital Voice. | |
| | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
edit:
April 21st, @01:34PM
| No, Cable companies had to get CLEC approval in every state they offer phone service in.
Right now cable companies are locked in a fight over the rule that says a cable company is excluded from the rule that says a Telco with a network has to upon request offer their network and elements of to other telcos at TSLRIC rates.
The rule was over turned by the US Federal courts and now in the US Supreme Court. If the ruling is upheld by the US Supreme Court the the next logical step would be that a Telco entering into what is called a cable broadcast setup then the would have to follow the rules for a cable company.
This is going to be a big mess that the FCC created by saying a cable company can get CLEC approval but does not have to offer any network elements to other telcos. | |
| | | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Bravo dcurrey,
I think you nailed that one !!
The FCC and govt agencies are willing to approve mega mergers within the industry, but are not willing to improve competition between the behomeths within the voice, video and data markets?? Go figure.
| |
| | 
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | I agree Verizon should be given some slack here. The sooner they get their product to the mrket the better we all are. But they should still be required to allow local access and set up local access studios in some areas etc. | |
| |
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | Cool. I learned the difference between Digital Telephone and VOIP in this thread! Thanks! | |
| | 
leveltelcomlaws2005
@optonline.net
| Lets make a deal, unburden Verizon from the fcc and other taxes and surcharges on voice lines that switch over to fiber, so they can compete with voip service in exchange for a 3-level community standards: ie liberal, centrist, and conservative bases on the geographic/political regions standards and states have no veto power with one small caveat: QOS standards
Right now verizon is stuck between two firewalls for triple play: fcc taxes/surcharges on POTS over fiber, and cable content providers with their eyes on all that former MA-Bell revenue from years past (a mighty war chest if you ask me)
Once these two hurdles are overcome verizon can compete on a semi-level playing field.
Verizon should be given some regulatory relief from the obligatory taxes/surcharges for services delivered over fiber. I can't see paying $70-90 for a converted POTS copper line that only runs when you power it the same way you power a cordless phone. In my eyes, thats what you pay all those taxes and fees for (most of it anyways-- some are manditory such as 911, usf, etc) Its a trade-off some customers will not want to switch without some incentive... and holding a bundle discount hostage is not an incentive (if they actually would do that- I'll have to check on that one)
For verizon to compete with services delivered over fiber, the prices have to compete, and the only one that can blow away the competition right now is broadband, that's all folks, and until something changes, verizon will be relegated to AOL status in the hoopla dialup days in 1995... so I hope this is not where they end up.. they need to be able to compete with lowest pried of triple play packages from cablevision and not the highest cost cable provider such as time warner, cox or comcast.. | |
| Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
·Verizon Online DSL
| Ivan should have called FiOS TV something else I could understand why cable MSOs didn't get much grief in providing VoIP, as it's currently still considered an Internet application rather than a telecom service.
Now how does Ivan expect Congress not to believe that Verizon isn't deliberately stepping on MSOs toes by rolling this out in already franchised markets?
This is the sort of competition that cable operators need so they stop raping customers with ever increasing monthly fees, but it's gonna be tough to convince already reluctant incumbents in each market. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Franchise = graft Franchise agreements aren't agreements that often benefit the community that signs them. Rather, they're a perfect example of legal graft. The politicians benefit, the cable company benefits (through the usually-exclusive franchise), and the customers lose through lack of competition. What's the "community" get? A few community channels on the cable system. Or, in Philadelphia, an agreement for a few community channels which the cable company doesn't bother fulfilling. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | No! As long a Verizon and the other Telco's continue in their efforts to kill Muni's they should be forced to deal with markets the way a cable system does. | |
| johnsp
join:2001-02-07
Syosset, NY | It's all about the money Don't forget the franchise fees you see at the bottom of your cable bill. DO you think you're local town wants to give that up? | |
| | 
john Qwest
join:2002-05-24
Fishkill, NY | Re: It's all about the money This would be just an added taxable service at the going telephony rate, which is a higher rate than the franchise fees applied to the cable industry. | |
| | 
Staplegun
join:2005-04-20
Flower Mound, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| Verizon is happy to pay the franchise fees. The issue Verizon has is meeting with every single city council to get approval. Plus Cable Co's go to these meetings to try and stall the process. The process is all very unnecessary. Let Verizon pay the fees and move on with offering video. | |
| 
Buttset
join:2001-11-12
Ladson, SC
edit:
April 21st, @11:26AM
|  Re: Rules Schmules
| |
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Rules Schmules Should they be allowed to build whereever they want on public property to provide those services? | |
| | | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Rules Schmules Is that the issue here? I didn't think adding IPTV would require any construction on private land. As someone above pointed out, any optics that have to be layed are going on existing poles and conduits, and Verizon is already laying fiber for broadband purposes. The issue is what kind of content Verizon is allowed to provide over their network. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| I was responding to Buttset's contention that we should allow any company to build infrastructure to offer any service they are willing to invest in.
Not to the specific situation of Verizon.
Verizon obviously wants to play by "telephone rules" because local governments have no leverage under those rules. Phone franchises are automatically extended and cannot be refused by a local government.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
edit:
April 21st, @12:15PM
| A letter from the front lines... For years, cablecos have pushed... hard... for exclusivity in their contracts. That's all the franchise rules are, contractual provisions in the franchise agreement that grant exclusivity... I've opposed these contracts of adhesion for years. I've actively negotiated, on behalf of municipalities, most of whom would, without specialized advice, quite literally sign whatever the existing cableco shoved in front of them, rather than negotiate to remove exclusivity clauses, and to (wherever possible) exercise options to renew old, less unconscionably one-sided contracts, wherever they exist, rather than sign (through the 90's... this was seen coming, and most cable outfits raced to tie up loose ends in the middle of the decade) new contracts. I have and admit an inherent bias, but I know the game, and my bias precedes my opinion, and is based on analysis from the municipalities' and citizens' perspective, I worked for them, not the telecoms or any other commercial interest.
My feelings are clear cut. Wherever an entity, cable or anything else, sews up a territory and bars all effective competition, the prices soar, service degrades as plant obsolesces, and plant is improved literally only when it's reached the deadest dead end of its useful life cycle. Remember, these things are phrased to ban all competing cablecos, not just telecom run ones. The result is a one-provider monopoly. And the municipality and the consumer suffers.
In the early days, some providers begged for exclusivity as a way of protecting their initial investment in plant. Cable was a new and very tentative idea. Nobody agreed on how well it would fare against broadcast TV. The plants were expensive, and it was hard to find financing to build them without some guarantee of a revenue stream. That's 35-40 years ago. Cable is a monolithic industry, now. The old plants are paid off. Financing is available for new ones. All these concepts of monopoly do, now, is impede technology and progress, stifle new solutions, and stymie free market competition, from which new, better ideas and business models emerge to make long term improvements for everyone.
I've seen communities free up their franchise model to allow multiple franchises, and I've seen communities where two or more franchises have been granted. In almost every case, the dire predictions of the old cableco that the competition would kill them, that it would have an adverse long term effect, and so forth have been proven self-serving and false. In almost every one of those areas where I've seen two or more cable providers emerge, prices have declined or remained at a reasonable level, service has improved steadily, along with QoS from both providers...
Competition is a good thing. It's at once the carrot and the stick, without which there's virtually no incentive to provide the best service at the fairest price. I've also seen the captive markets. Service improves slowly, if at all. New technologies are slow to emerge. Prices skyrocket. Cableco profits rise. Consumer satisfaction plummets. And there's no choice for the unhappy consumer (at least, until satellite emerged; but to some, especially the most vulnerable, seniors and those with limited means or limited tech savvy, satellite is still more or less "not an option," anyway)...
More power to Verizon. However any of us might feel about some of their other positions, this one's the "good fight," and it's beneficial to us all for them to prevail. I'm behind them, speaking for myself, 100%. Godspeed and best wishes.
In the Spirit of one of my many philosophical mentors, Mr. Roosevelt, the first... that's Teddy for, reference, the old "hero of San Juan Hill" and the trust-buster extraordinaire... I can only say... "Bully!" 
PS- I haven't discussed an important part of this issue, the waiver process required for an ILEC to service CTV in their territory. This isn't an omission, it's a simplfication... I feel the same about that... largely, those regs were passed as a sort of compliment to most states' common carrier regs out of concern over "cross-subsidization." I've always considered the FCC regs duplicative and phrased in such a way as to evade the real concern, and simply provide a "preferred status" to the cablecos... in other words, I regard them as being little more than a cable lobbiest's dream come true. If you want to prevent cross-subsidization, say so, and set up reasonable regulations on bifurcation of business operations to reach that end. If you want (in reality) to help the cable industry maintain monopoly status in its service areas, play things the way the waiver regs are (were? Or do the rules even apply in an IPTV scenario? That wasn't an option, yet, when I was active in these things... I would have to do some serious research on current regs, I haven't done this in several years, now) phrased. Technologies and business models change; so must regulations, to reflect progress and prepare us for the future, rather than tether us to the past.
--
Semper Eadem
-"Tewdor Thunder"- | |
| | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: A letter from the front lines... As posted elsewhere, franchise agreements rarely give a cable operator exclusivity, as witnessed by the multiple providers in many larger metros (I have a choice of RCN or Comcast for example).
Whats a stake here is the clause that forces Verizon to provide UNIVERSAL coverage in the towns they depl |
|
|
|
Verizon: Rules Schmules
·
·
·