 Nightwchtr
join:2001-09-10
Falls Church, VA | Smells Fishy Sounds like a good plan but like all things that start out good will probably not be good for consumers in the long run only time will tell. | |
|
 | 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA | Re: Smells Fishy Yup...Another back office sweetheart deal for selling out this country.....whats new! They will tell us after the deal..... PLEASE | |
|
| | 
Vodka2
join:2005-12-20
Sacramento, CA | Re: Smells Fishy Sod em all. Get a C-band dish and a-la-carte. :-D | |
|
| 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Why do they need it to be secret until after the vote? No need to keep it secret unless there's something to hide. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| FCC Sanity? Wow... for once they are right!
It is indisputably, irrefutably true that the biggest obstacle to next-generation broadband/TV service deployments are pesky local governments which put up inane build-out requirements for providers. Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.
The only real solution here is for voters to get on the ball and vote out local government officials which continue to stand in way of progress. The last thing we need is more Federal bureaucracy in what really should remain a state/local issue.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| 
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: FCC Sanity? I hope they put a stop to Munis asking for anything NOT having to do with BB/TV service. No Community Centers, no swimming pools, no more of the local politicians buying votes by saying "look what I got for you." And you shouldn't need more than about 10 Public access Channels either.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. | |
|
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by qdemn7  :I hope they put a stop to Munis asking for anything NOT having to do with BB/TV service. No Community Centers, no swimming pools, no more of the local politicians buying votes by saying "look what I got for you." And you shouldn't need more than about 10 Public access Channels either. I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | |
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by TK Junk Mail :I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel. Very true, I was just being generous for a very large city, say over 5 million.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. | |
|
| | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by TK Junk Mail :I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel. Few cities have more than 1 public access channel anyway.
If you are including government and educational channels, they have way high viewership than public access (nothing that would support a broadcast network, but still easily enough to justify their existence).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| quote:
Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.
Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year.
Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by itguy05 :Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year. Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
said by itguy05 :Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | 
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
·Optimum Online
edit:
December 18th, @11:29AM
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by pnh102 :Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like. Are you sure thats what you meant? If a company exists without any competition, they have a better chance of prospering, not the other way around. If there was no competition, there would have been no reason for them to expand their service offerings, they would just have to keep raising the prices of their existing products.
--
" Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by RickNY :Are you sure thats what you meant? Yes. There was a brief period a few years back when satellite TV was killing cable. I remember when Comcast was offering satellite TV subscribers $400 in discounts to become cable subscribers.
However, cable now offers more of the types of services that satellite TV offers. If cable had not made these improvements, those providers would have continued to lose customers to satellite.
Of course, if there were no satellite TV providers, cable would still be making money hand over fist but their product offerings would be worse than what they currently offer.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| quote:
Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
I highly doubt that. HD programming followed the trend in big screen HD sets. I'd say that one was driven more by consumers and CE companies vs competition.
The rest is nice, but more like a natural evolution. DVR's were the result of Tivo coming on the scene and the CableCo's realizing that they could make $9.99 off Tivo-like functionality.
quote:
Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.
And many more are told "see you". And if you do switch, it's often for a short time before your rates go up. I have been with both sat providers and now comcast. After all the rate increases on sat, Comcast is roughly (within $5-10) what I was paying DirecTV. | |
|
| | | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: FCC Sanity? "After all the rate increases on sat, Comcast is roughly (within $5-10) what I was paying DirecTV."
Which is the current marketing technique. This will also happen with fiber in a few years. They will just set the prices so close to each other that it will not matter who you get service from. Standard price fixing collusion. | |
|
| | | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Im not sure where you live, but if I had chose cable instead of Dishnetwork and received the same programing I would be paying about $21 a month more with cable. | |
|
| | | itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by Skippy25 :Im not sure where you live, but if I had chose cable instead of Dishnetwork and received the same programing I would be paying about $21 a month more with cable. You are getting the shaft from your cableco. Here Comcast is about $5-10 more than Dish/Directv. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by en102 :Comcast was _much_ more expensive to start than DirecTv 1 tuner Directv = $39.99 Analog service on Comcast was $50.40 (no standard basic available in my zip  ) Digital was $60.10 for 1 tuner. I have 3 tuners on DirecTv with the 'plus' package and pay $57/month after all taxes and fees. Of course, you realize that if you had no standard basic then you were not protected by a municipal franchise agreement. That is another drawback of dropping franchise agreements... the telcos will not have to carry a basic package (which means to rate regulation).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD
| said by itguy05 :Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. Umm, a panacea is a cure-all. That is, a solution to all problems, cure for all diseases. I don't think that's what you meant, was it?
»dictionary.reference.com/browse/panacea | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: FCC Sanity? Not to mention I wouldn't call, in any way, the present oligopoly that exists in the communications delivery market, a competitive market at all. So it seems that OP has expressed several logical fallacies. | |
|
| | | itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| quote:
Umm, a panacea is a cure-all.
Yes. Everyone thinks competition is the cure all for high prices and innovation. What they fail to realize is that it is rarely the cure all. It's basically "who do you want to pay you $xxx to?"
They always think competition will result in massively lower rates. | |
|
| | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: FCC Sanity?
Fact is, rates NEVER go down for regular service for ANY reason other than a limited promo, or, gov/court order. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| I agree that competition needs to happen as quickly as possible. However, we should question national decisions as they are most likely a compromise that is good for some and bad for others.
Cable competition claims that local governments are impeding progress. But I naturally question that claim since there are always two sides to an argument. Principally, I believe competition only works when it's offered to all residents of a local community.
In 1998 SBC (now ATT) offered DSL to select residents of my area who were within a 3 mile radius of their central offices. Year after year they have promised those too far would be offered DSL "real soon now". It's nearly 2007 and they have NOT delivered on that promise. Should I believe that their television service deployment will be different?
What the government (not just the FCC) should do is ban utility taxes that are not directly tied to regulatory cost recovery. Given this, I seriously doubt local municipalities would be able to justify their current utility-based income schemes. Don't you agree that it's silly to pay a tax to your local municipality based on your electricity, gas or cable bill? I think it's insane.
I understand that local cities without significant retail development cannot operate on retail taxes. However, why not add an assessment to real estate taxes? This has to be more just than a utility consumption tax or do we believe that your ability to pay correlates with utility usage? While still not 100%, I think it's far more likely that someone owning more valuable property is able to pay more taxes.
In exchange for a national franchise the FCC should mandate reasonable deployment timelines to prevent the same thing that happened with DSL in my area. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: FCC Sanity? I agree with you that certain taxes should be eliminated. However, it is the universal buildout requirement which has doomed many providers from wanting to do business in many localities.
In nearly every jurisdiction that has tried to mandate universal service, the end result was a success of sorts in that everyone got no service whatsoever.
Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: FCC Sanity? Property taxes have also been pushed to their limit. (at least in the Northeast and on the coasts) Not to mention they exclude constituents who may be large users of said utilities; namely renters. | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by Ahrenl :Property taxes have also been pushed to their limit. Heh... keep dreaming 
Government will always find ways to raise "high" property taxes. In MD they just raise it at the state level. In Philadelphia they simply re-assess your house at a ridiculously high price so that you pay more at the existing rate. One way or another, they will keep raising it.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| As a landlord I can tell you with certainty that those renters are paying property taxes via monthly rent checks. You don't think we just eat those expenses, do you? Property taxes are one of if not the largest expenses of owning rental property.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | 
RealityBot
@bellsouth.net
| said by pnh102 :Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable. And for that reason, America will always lag behind other nations technologically... | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| I agree. Internet access and television service are not rights. For that matter, phone, electricity, sewer and water should not be a rights but a privileges. However twisted their logic, I suspect some states probably have laws that make it a right. I'm not sure how the constitution enforces this but maybe they amended the constitution. Regardless, that's a whole different discussion.
I believe every business should have the privilege to pick its customers and provide whatever service it can based on profits. In my opinion, this is congruent with basic capitalism. However, whenever utilities are involved, both companies and the government are predisposed to involve legislative action to define, assist and govern fees. Generally this is caused by lack of true competition (oligopoly).
My bottom line belief: If some level of government is to provide an advantage to a particular company, then I believe that government has an obligation to ensure the advantage eventually provides the product or service to a majority of its constituents. And....eventually should be reasonable and not 10+ years. | |
|
| | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
December 19th, @11:42AM
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by rradina :My bottom line belief: If some level of government is to provide an advantage to a particular company, then I believe that government has an obligation to ensure the advantage eventually provides the product or service to a majority of its constituents. And.... eventually should be reasonable and not 10+ years. That was the premise behind granting monopolies with regulated but guaranteed rates of return. In exchange, the utility (electric, telco, whatever) was required to serve 100% of the customers in the franchise area who wanted service, regardless of the cost to the company.
What you believe, and what most of the so-called regulators forgot in the 1980s is that despite all the rhetoric there are natural monopolies which do not lend themselves to facilities-based competitive markets. But besides the economic disincentive to overbuilding there are public interest considerations as well. You generally would not want to have, say, 10 electric companies all setting poles and stringing their own wires. Cities would be strangled in power lines.
The Reaganomics era threw that out the window and championed "the market" as the regulator of choice for just about anything. While the regulatory landscape in the early 80's was anything but desirable it had elements of sanity which are missing from today's scenarios. This is one of them. At some point the local regulatory agencies (usually some franchise authority of some sort) got stupid and demanded the sky from the huge cash cow which cable TV grew into. Service became unimportant as long as the local alderman had his access channel to use as a campaign tool.
National franchising is another knee-jerk reaction to bad regulation, but there is no real comparative benefit to the current situation, either. If there were, 100% of all cable TV customers would have state of the art HSI because the local regulators would have mandated it. They are mostly impotent and Comcast, et. al. know it. Despite their whining to the contrary, they'd love to be out from under these local contracts.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: FCC Sanity? said by RadioDoc :That was the premise behind granting monopolies with regulated but guaranteed rates of return. In exchange, the utility (electric, telco, whatever) was required to serve 100% of the customers in the franchise area who wanted service, regardless of the cost to the company. If that's really true, how did the telcos manage to get USF? Is that a result of the deregulation?
I also agree that we cannot have 10 electricity providers stringing poles in neighborhoods. The same holds true for other service utilities including cable and telephone -- unless the latter two can go wireless.
Incidentally, that's where my hope is. If wireless can continue to improve for the last mile, most consumers may be able to live the Holy Grail of true competition. There will always be rural challenges but a majority of rural customers don't enjoy public water and sewer. At their expense, they drill wells and install septic systems. | |
|
| | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: FCC Sanity? The USF is a figment of Congressional imagination. A enormously large, bacon-flavored figment.
Wireless is not the future, unless your future is one of continuously degrading service quality and laughably inept spectrum management. But as long as the marks keep shoveling their money into the cellular coffers you won't see any improvement in price, service or availability.
We have "wireless" video. It's called OTA television and satellite TV. Considering the number of digital signals one ATSC transmission can carry, and the number of ATSC channels which may be available in any given market, broadcast TV is the way to go for the ad-supported content and satellite is the way to go for paid content. The current wet dream of video on demand via the Internet is not viable unless significant changes are made in the way it works. It is insanity to think a separate bandwidth-consuming connection for each viewer is sustainable when the broadcast model is so much more efficient and has zero marginal distribution cost for each additional viewer.
Cable will never be able to go "wireless". Their entire business model is built on total control of the path. Once their 'last mile' hits the air it's effectively free.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Yes it's not fair. Those with more money can afford more energy efficient stuff, homes, and improvements while poorer people tend to have what they can afford which may be less energy efficient. This shifts some of the tax burden on those who really need a break nowdays.
--
Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org | |
|
| | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | How would you feel if there was no franchising agreement needed and both the telco and cable company decided not to service your area. Add to that, they would prevent anyone else from servicing your area under the "promise" to service you one day. | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by pnh102 :inane build-out requirements for providers. I think they would consider it doing what they were elected to do: look out for the welfare of their citizens. They represent all their citizens, not just those considered "desirable" by the telcos. Federal laws have largely removed the rights of munis to say anything about cable rates; just about the only thing left that they have a say in is build-out.
What Martin, et al, is saying is that it is better that only a few have service available to them, with a bit lower prices due to competition, than to have the service available to everyone, albeit at a bit higher price. In other words, there will be winners and losers, and those on the losing end will just have to deal with it. I think the closer you get to the local level, the tougher it is for that to seem like a good idea. | |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| "build-out requirements." really, limit "build-out requirements." That, if anything, is the only benefit I find on franchise agreements. Well, I guess people leaving a feet away from what they provider feels is profitable know will have to stick a out a couple of thousands to get service/ | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| anybody's fault but his FCC Chief Kevin Martin blames rising cable rates on local municipalities...
this is the same logic that blames the american people (or the press or the Iraqis) for the mess in Iraq.
It apparently hasn't occured to Martin that the reason we have no competition is the FCC keeps approving megamergers and deregulating monopolistic industries. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: anybody's fault but his Uh.... competitors haven't been merging for the most part. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: anybody's fault but his Yes but service providers and backbone/transport servicers have. Once the service provider purchases the backbone which is used by their competitors to deliver their competing service, competition can be eliminated. | |
|
| | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: anybody's fault but his When has that actually happened? Where has backbone operators merging driven up consumer-end prices?
There have been no mergers within markets for years now, and the ones which happened during the dot-bomb five years ago were fire sales and bankruptcy proceedings.
I'm no fan of megacorps but at least make some sensible assumptions in your arguments.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD | Why now? Cable rates have increased above the rate of inflation for as long as I can remember. I agree with his observations and goal, but I wonder about the timing of addressing this problem as the telcos want to enter the market. | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Why now? said by cbrain :... but I wonder about the timing of addressing this problem as the telcos want to enter the market. no need to wonder - Martin works for the telcos, not the consumer. I also think Martin is getting desperate that there be some glimmer of competition, whether it's real or not.
The bi-monthly or so "BPL is GREAT" press release doesn't seem to be working.
Just asserting that competition exists usually works with the gullible congress and gullible press, but the annual cable rate increases sort of reveal these assertions for the lies they are.
That leaves "unleashing" the telcos to offer TV service without requiring local franchises. This will work until the rules get passed and it becomes obvious that duopoly competition is only marginally better than no competition. | |
|
| |
| | |
franchisescandal
@verizon.net
| video tax? you can look at it two ways, either a greedy municpality.. or a local cable company looking for job security, maybe a little of both. it's quite possible there may even be a truce between satellite and local cable companies to stop or slow down telco's entry into video. if telcos pass on these costs to the consumer, it's quite likely people will not buy video from them, backfiring on those franchise fees-- you can't GET what they don't COLLECT. a viscious circle whereby satellite and local cable monopolies win, which is to say despite the record number of 'settled' franchise agreements won by telcos, they aren't shy of passing on these costs to the end consumer. a reform must 'get at' a MAXIMUM determined value of concessions to a franchise without any possibilty of a waiver, with resonable adjustment for inflation. this is an up-hill holy grail because it's no secret that the telcos are flush with cash (fresh from mega merger) for their buildouts. | |
|
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| time limit he wants to put a time limit on negotiations. If they don't finish a franchise with a local municipality in three months, they get to operate without an agreement. what will make the telco's just hold out until the time limit expires and then operate without a franchise anyway? This is a terrible proposal only benefiting at&t and not any consumers. don't believe their lies. | |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | That is not what was said last year Did not the providers blame the higher rates on what they have to pay for certain mandatory channels like sports?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Please teach this in high school Historically and logically, nearly any instance of the Federal government looking to usurp the powers of the state (or local municipality) is for the benefit of the few and not the many. Anyone that believes otherwise is history's fool.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | price drop? never
the implication that no franchising system will lead to lower cable rates is b.s.
the simplest way to voice your disapproval is to stop giving the providers your money. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Step in the right direction. Finally , but why won't they disclose all the info ?
Id like to see national franchises but with good restrictions. And this goes for satellite providers as well.
- All promotions must be nation wide.
- All prices must be nation wide.
- All upgrades must also be done nation wide in a reasonable time line based upon an experts opinion on how long they should take and hard numbers.
- A standard $2 each month to your local government. ( Your city and state share this ! )
- carry local access channels ( even if low quality just send at least 2 of these so people can see their snow emergency plans and such for their city. obviously satellite providers don't need to do this. but it would be nice. or cycle them in with locals for the area. One channel carries 12 cities. Something like that pack em in make them useful instead of just constantly scrolling content and crappy pictures of the city )
- Provide discounted rates for the "triple play" to local schools and educational institutes. ( even the big carrier class links )
- Cap on the % they can raise rates every year.
There are some other things I can't think of at the moment Id like added in there as well.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA
| Re: Step in the right direction. said by BosstonesOwn :Id like to see national franchises but with good restrictions. And this goes for satellite providers as well. - All promotions must be nation wide. - All prices must be nation wide. - All upgrades must also be done nation wide in a reasonable time line based upon an experts opinion on how long they should take and hard numbers. - A standard $2 each month to your local government. ( Your city and state share this ! ) - carry local access channels ( even if low quality just send at least 2 of these so people can see their snow emergency plans and such for their city. obviously satellite providers don't need to do this. but it would be nice. or cycle them in with locals for the area. One channel carries 12 cities. Something like that pack em in make them useful instead of just constantly scrolling content and crappy pictures of the city ) - Provide discounted rates for the "triple play" to local schools and educational institutes. ( even the big carrier class links ) - Cap on the % they can raise rates every year. Can I have some of the stuff your smoking? It will never happen.. | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs: | Re: Step in the right direction. Never said it will but that is what I would consider fair. | |
|
| |
FCC: High Cable Rates Due To Franchising System
·
·
·
·
