 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | DOCSIS 1.1 Actually, North Carolina is still DOCSIS 1.1. Yes, lame I know.
I spoke to TW Biz Class yesterday and the fastest they STILL offer is 2Mbps upstream unless you get a fiber drop. Yay for DOCSIS 1.1! | |
|
 | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: DOCSIS 1.1 An important clarification, thanks.  | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
1 edit | lol I guessing Tw can only lay fiber and no one else can?
even Sc is still on 1.1 but the old Adelphia networks here are on docsis 2.0 | |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| What on earth? Why in the hell is TWC so desperate to screw consumers?
First it's bandwidth metering and caps.
Next, it's no DOCSIS 3.0 for areas that fought them over caps.
Next it's lobbying the NC House to crush any potential competition, followed up by lobbying to the NC Senate to do the same.
TWC INVESTORS: Perhaps you should start discussing the need to replace the board, CEO, and upper management at TWC before they piss off so many people the company will completely crumble and your stock will be worthless. . .
Seriously, I don't remember a time when I've seen a single company to do so many things that result in so much bad press in such a short period of time.
Their CEO either has hard-on for a serious raise or internally they're seriously screwed and ready to collapse. I can't think of to much else that explains this kind of desperation.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
|
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: What on earth? said by fireflier  :Their CEO either has hard-on for a serious raise or internally they're seriously screwed and ready to collapse. I can't think of to much else that explains this kind of desperation. Your heart has to ache for TWC's CEO Britt who "only" earned $14.4 last year, which is an 8% decrease from the previous year. And since the Great American Fiscal Meltdown only promises even more misery for anyone who is not a banker and/or a domestic auto manufacturer, realistically speaking, it is more profitable for Britt to run TWC into the ground as he can then safely escape via the built in golden parachute that is no doubt in place.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: What on earth? I'm sure that the upper level management has shareholders/bod pressuring them to make more profit or lose their jobs, including the 'measley' $14.4m salary | |
|
| PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD | Because no incumbent wishes to compete against a superior product and face true competition and scrutiny. See: Comcast v. Verizon in Philly. | |
|
| 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Uh, this company was spun off from the same company that thought AOL was a good partner. What do you expect? | |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors
That is a distortion of the free enterprise system and tries to hide TRUE costs inside of public budgets that encompass many different services(cross subsidization). In effect, public officials create a very large slush fund where they can hide their politically appointed cronies and where finding where that money came from is difficult, if not impossible.
And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook.
»www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnew···/DC80943
According to a brand new report released today and authored by IPI senior fellow Barry M. Aarons, municipal broadband has been plagued by failure nearly every time it has been attempted, and at great cost to taxpayers.
When municipal broadband networks fail, it is the taxpayers who must pay for the loss. And municipal broadband systems have been expensive government failures in cities including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and Orlando.
"When the marketplace drives the investment, the results are far superior to any instance when government tries to force a market," said Aarons. Doc on the failures and the costs to taxpayers:
»www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublication···nElement
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by GOLFnSUN :And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook. What's the difference? The taxpayers you're so worried about are already on the hook for about $700B and counting in bullshit bank bailouts. | |
|
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by major marco :said by GOLFnSUN :And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook. What's the difference? The taxpayers you're so worried about are already on the hook for about $700B and counting in bullshit bank bailouts. Something I was completely against. Ventures should be ALLOWED to fail and the investors should bear the loss and not the taxpayers.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors I agree.. AIG, Chrysler, many banks, GM should have all been allowed to fail. | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors It is not a personal attack, I am just stating the obvious
--
BlooMe | |
|
| 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| said by GOLFnSUN :The reason for support of a law like this is that TWC and other private ISPs don't want to see public companies with taxpayer subsidized lower prices that don't reflect the real underlying costs. That is a distortion of the free enterprise system and tries to hide TRUE costs inside of public budgets that encompass many different services(cross subsidization). In effect, public officials create a very large slush fund where they can hide their politically appointed cronies and where finding where that money came from is difficult, if not impossible. And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook. » www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnew···/DC80943According to a brand new report released today and authored by IPI senior fellow Barry M. Aarons, municipal broadband has been plagued by failure nearly every time it has been attempted, and at great cost to taxpayers.
When municipal broadband networks fail, it is the taxpayers who must pay for the loss. And municipal broadband systems have been expensive government failures in cities including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and Orlando.
"When the marketplace drives the investment, the results are far superior to any instance when government tries to force a market," said Aarons. Doc on the failures and the costs to taxpayers: » www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublication···nElement Blah blah..seriously that's all I read from you just now. Aren't you a stock exchange trader for cable isps? What does your argument have ANYTHING to do with what Time Warner is doing lately? NOTHING, that's what. | |
|
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by ztmike :said by GOLFnSUN :The reason for support of a law like this is that TWC and other private ISPs don't want to see public companies with taxpayer subsidized lower prices that don't reflect the real underlying costs. That is a distortion of the free enterprise system and tries to hide TRUE costs inside of public budgets that encompass many different services(cross subsidization). In effect, public officials create a very large slush fund where they can hide their politically appointed cronies and where finding where that money came from is difficult, if not impossible. And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook. » www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnew···/DC80943According to a brand new report released today and authored by IPI senior fellow Barry M. Aarons, municipal broadband has been plagued by failure nearly every time it has been attempted, and at great cost to taxpayers.
When municipal broadband networks fail, it is the taxpayers who must pay for the loss. And municipal broadband systems have been expensive government failures in cities including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and Orlando.
"When the marketplace drives the investment, the results are far superior to any instance when government tries to force a market," said Aarons. Doc on the failures and the costs to taxpayers: » www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublication···nElement Blah blah..seriously that's all I read from you just now. Aren't you a stock exchange trader for cable isps? What does your argument have ANYTHING to do with what Time Warner is doing lately? NOTHING, that's what. I am not a stock trader. I invest in mutual funds and have no control over what the mutual fund mgrs invest in. And whether I am invested in cable ISPs or not has nothing to do with the facts outlined above.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | 
ZachAttack
@rr.com
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors The Municipal Broadband Company's provide good service for a reasonable price, if Time Warner provided better service the profits would come naturally. Instead they are resorting to lobbying, and whining. Instead of being anti-consumer which they certainly are demonstrating that they are.
Why not provide a better service, rather than trying to gouge the consumer bolster their bottom line and then crumble when eventually everyone flees, or there is so much pent-up frustration that Municipal Broadband is widespread. | |
|
|
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Those cited muni-broadband failures were WiFi failures Tk. Almost every "cable in the ground" muni deployment has so far been a resounding success -- even with the lawsuits thrown at them. | |
|
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by Matt :Those cited muni-broadband failures were WiFi failures Tk. Almost every "cable in the ground" muni deployment has so far been a resounding success -- even with the lawsuits thrown at them. I seem to remember a few failures out in Utah. Provo & vicinity.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by GOLFnSUN :said by Matt :Those cited muni-broadband failures were WiFi failures Tk. Almost every "cable in the ground" muni deployment has so far been a resounding success -- even with the lawsuits thrown at them. I seem to remember a few failures out in Utah. Provo & vicinity. You mean iProvo. That was ONE failure that anti-muni's keep holding up as the shining example of failure. Can you name another? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22 | Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors Okay that's three more, for a total of four... Out of how many projects? | |
|
| |
| | |
| | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by amigo_boy :said by GOLFnSUN :That is a distortion of the free enterprise system and tries to hide TRUE costs inside of public budgets that encompass many different services(cross subsidization). If we're concerned about distorting "TRUE" costs, we should require ISPs to negotiate rights of way and easements with each property owner along the way. Not take advantage of society's planning for such market activities in advance, and greasing the skids for it. Mark Truth.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| |
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors because then the people whine and cry they have to pay more taxes and then start moving out of the city or county to stop paying for the higher taxes, resulting in the city/county to go to the States and Feds and ask for a bail out. | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Since you keep spouting this off provide a link that shows they are guaranteed by tax payer money.
Bonds can go to 0 and be worthless just like any other investment unless they are specifically guaranteed. | |
|
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors said by Skippy25 :Since you keep spouting this off provide a link that shows they are guaranteed by tax payer money. Bonds can go to 0 and be worthless just like any other investment unless they are specifically guaranteed. Look it up yourself. I provided a link to the law in a post above.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors I will take that as a "you looked but couldn't find it either reply".
I looked at the links you provided and as suspected before even clicking them they are simply links to people arguing for your point of view without showing facts for what I am asking.
I hold 10 $1000 muni bonds from the late 1800 and early 1900's that are worth nothing more than what a collector would be willing to pay me for them.
So again I ask, where does it state that these bonds are government guaranteed? Just because they are government issued DOES NOT mean they can't go to $0. So unless the bonds issued specifically say they are guaranteed putting tax payers on the hook, they are an investment risk just like a stock. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: TWC and others don't want taxpayer subsidized competitors The difference is between General Obligation bonds, supported by the tax base, which are essentially guaranteed by the local government, and Revenue bonds, which are specifically guaranteed by the project they are used to support.
Provided Revenue bonds are issued (which would be the most appropriate when raising funding for a specific project) then the locality has no obligation to pay off those bonds, and only the cash flow from the project may be used. | |
|
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| said by GOLFnSUN :The reason for support of a law like this is that TWC and other private ISPs don't want to see public companies with taxpayer subsidized lower prices that don't reflect the real underlying costs. So.... TW is being transparent with their true underlying costs, right? They don't want competition. Well go and tell Time Warner to become a citizen and vote. They would not have to fight this if they actually serviced their customers interests, instead of milking them like blind sheep.
From what I can tell, they just don't want other criminals to compete with. At least we can vote out the other criminals, unlike our opportunities with TW.
cw | |
|
| 
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | said by GOLFnSUN :According to a brand new report released today and authored by IPI senior fellow Barry M. Aarons, municipal broadband has been plagued by failure nearly every time it has been attempted, and at great cost to taxpayers.
When municipal broadband networks fail, it is the taxpayers who must pay for the loss. And municipal broadband systems have been expensive government failures in cities including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and Orlando.
"When the marketplace drives the investment, the results are far superior to any instance when government tries to force a market," said Aarons. Doc on the failures and the costs to taxpayers: » www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublication···nElement Are you honestly trying to quote the IPI, a thinktank with well established history of pro-industry-biased 'reporting', as a reliable source? | |
|
|
vzw emp
@qwest.net
| First, I don't know who the IPI's supporters are. I'd have to see who's writing the checks before I give too much credibility.
Second, if Time Warner or any other ISP in North Carolina were concerned about fair play they would be pushing a law that applied to all ISP's, not just muni broadband efforts. While I agree these municipal networks should not be subsidized with tax money there is nothing preventing an ISP from subsidizing prices charged in one market with revenues earned in another. Simply put, if this law passed it would make it legally impossible for a muni broadband network to match prices of an ISP below a certain level. The muni network would only be allowed to lower prices down to the actual cost of the service, allowing a competing ISP, such as TW, to set their prices artifially lower than the muni's (and their own costs) and use revenues from other regions to sustain the lower prices in a relatively small area. It's not the muni projects I'm worried about, it's the ISP's, who have shown their willingness to use any underhanded tactic at their disposal, that I worry about.
As far as the IPI's report, I've said in other posts that muni broadband won't work in all areas, specifically cites that already have broadband (such as those you mentioned). But in cities like Wilson, NC, where the options are limited or non-existent, I don't see a problem.
I'm all for muni broadband so long as it's is self-sufficient and they are not using tax revenues to stay in operation.
PS: A bond is not a tax. Local government can raise taxes without a vote. A bond must be voted for and approved by the public and has a finite time that is in existence. | |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| Is the ban only for Government run ISPs or Would it prevent me from starting an ISPs there if I wanted to.
If it is just the Gov I can understand, but if it is stopping an individual from starting an ISP I am 100% against it and dont even know if that(stopping a normal person from starting an ISP) is legal. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA | What is next for TWC? If they lose this are they gonna send around their goon squad telling people to 'forgettaboutit', and if they don't, BAM? | |
|
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Having had RoadRunner for years I'm hard pressed to find any rationale for referring to it as
"sluggish".
Last I checked it still runs 5 to 10 times many DSL connections and as far back as 1998 when most people were sailing along on their 28k AOL connections..I was enjoying T1 speeds of 1500k on it as one of their first Ohio customers.
And even today, it very effectively competes with many tiers of even Verizons fios service..not to mention AT&T's pitiful next generation service..Pewverse.
The difference of course is that Roadrunner is already in many peoples homes..and has been for up to a decade..while these other services are struggling to compete to be anything at all while laying out Billions of dollars to do so.
As for the municipal broadband issue..I can't help but to sympathize with TW in some ways. These communities asked them to come in..gave them franchises to supposedly protect their investments..and now decide they'd like to compete with them. How fair is that? I don't see it as being very fair at all really PARTICULARLY because even without competition, they have kept their prices very reasonable and speeds at the forefront of what most if not everyone else has provided.
I also have to question whether this "competition" would really be very good for anyone involved and whether it really might have the effect of RAISING peoples prices in time. I mean..if TW or any other company winds up with LESS customers and has the same network to maintain..who really wins here? It seems to me there would be pressure on BOTH to raise prices in order to survive.
This doesn't mean I'm totally singing the praises of TW these days. I think they've handled the issue of caps poorly and I do think they could be more aggressive about a Docsis 3.0 rollout and be more like Comcast in that regard.
And so, perhaps they're bringing some of this upon themselves.
But at the same time though it's unfair I think to expect them to have everything upgraded overnight. They upgraded their network a decaded before the telcos did..spending billions in the process. And they did it with no competition around..delivered world class speeds for years..
all at a reasonable price. And that, people should keep in mind.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
ABell
@sbcglobal.net
| Underlying Costs Let's shine a bright light upon the 'underlying costs' of the telecom empire's infrastructure that was and is subsidized by the taxpayer, and equally clarify the extent to which there are perpetual regulations allowing these private firms to skim 'extra' fees from customers, based upon successful corporate lobbying. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| self interest & profit preservation title says it all!
time warner finds money for docsis 3.0 in NYC but not other areas where they potentially face competition from a 3rd carrier UNTIL they actually go ahead and build a network! that is very hypocritical & operating in their OWN SELF INTEREST AND PROFIT PRESERVATION! not only should those lobbying efforts fail, but the residents should RI$E up and have a mass exodus of cancellations in the NC twc cable system just to prove that consumers will NOT tolerate arrogant behavior by major carriers anymore.. the consumer must realize they have teeth and it's well past time they begin using them again!
not only that, once the NC system breaks free of twc.. other areas will have the courage to do the same (especially ones served by docsis 1.X or poor node management of 2.x) | |
|
| 
MachRider
join:2006-01-11
Wilson, NC
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: self interest & profit preservation said by tmc8080 :not only should those lobbying efforts fail, but the residents should RI$E up and have a mass exodus of cancellations in the NC twc cable system just to prove that consumers will NOT tolerate arrogant behavior by major carriers anymore.. This (current) TWC customer and former Sprint/Embarq DSL tech will be doing exactly that as soon as we decide on a house in Wilson and (preferably) get our current home in Clayton sold.
I have been "too close to the kitchen" with broadband/internet service and know better than to think either of above-named will do anything out of the "goodness of their hearts" in Clayton anytime soon. Or anywhere else for that matter.
I more or less told TWC that they do not need to assume they have a captive audience among various other rants I gave them as feedback to their cap campaign. They claimed they wanted to hear what their customers had to say, so they got an eyeful. 
This isn't just me. Where I work at, there are several people raving about TWC. Whether it is the caps they are talking about doing, the throttling they are ALREADY doing (that is affecting us being able to play games on our TWC/RR turbo connection), or simply their "monopolist" mentality over bandwidth and service offerings -- people are talking about them.
I of course understand that not everybody is as concerned about the quality of their internet connections as we are. There are large numbers of people that probably don't care who their ISP is, as long as they can still read their email and surf the web a bit, and don't have to pay an arm and a leg for it. But even among this crowd, a lot of people understand that competition is a GOOD thing.
I guess it is these folks they are trying to "educate" with their lobbying and disinformation campaigns.
Something else I "fed back" to TWC was that until they have people we can talk to when there is a service problem who know what they hell they are doing, and a network where our traffic doesn't have to roll around for 8-10 hops before it stumbles across a way OUT to the internet so it can reach its destination, I don't think they need to be making public statements about needing to "educate" anyone about ANYTHING.
MachRider | |
|
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: self interest & profit preservation Good luck on that since this network seems like it will be limited in terms of where its built. Especially now. It will be years before the city is wired if it's completely wired. A lot can happen between now and when the city is wired. | |
|
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | Looks Like it Went Down The senate panel sent it to a study committee...so it looks like its DOA at least for the next year | |
|
John Keels
@bellsouth.net
| HB1252 etc Well, well, TWC, Embarq, Charter, etc. We here in NC have sent you a message in the last two days in the form of a fast, swift and deserved kick in the ass. Apparently, enough people in the general assembly saw these bills for what they are. That being a foolish attempt by a corporation to gain leverage in the market by having protected access to the market place and a protected business model and revenue stream.
I said it the other day and I'll say it again when it comes to CAPS, Government protected monopoly, etc. You guys needed your butts kicked. I have no sympathy. If you as the incumbent providers are going to go cry about this "monstrous failure" then I will be glad to find you a nice high chair and set your corporates butts in it and turn the high chair toward the corner so you can pout by yourself for a while. Your dishonest attempts at manipulating the market place FAILED.
Do not expect sympathy from me. | |
|
eqshadimar
Premium
join:2004-10-20
Plano, TX
·Vonage
·Verizon FIOS
| Who cares what they do with their own money? Unless I am missing something who really cares if the town decided to install fiber. Maybe they have really good city managers and their Fire, Police, etc are fully funded. I keep reading about people saying "when all these cities are cutting back on services blah blah blah how can they justify installing fiber" Well how do you know that is the case in this town? How is this any different than a town deciding to install a wind farm or build their own power plant with bond money? How about building a public park, swimming pool, or fitness center? Surely those compete against corporate fitness clubs but you are not in a uproar about that.
Bottom line a town should be allowed to do what they want with the money they collect from taxes as long as the voters approve it and it is legal.
Laters,
Jeff | |
|
| Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
·AT&T CallVantage
·VOIPo
| Re: Who cares what they do with their own money? I agree with you. I live in a town that is also the local electricity 'supplier'. As an electric co-op with several other cities, town residents (and businesses) must purchase our electricity from the town. The town maintains the infrastructure (lines, etc.) and, as I understand it, purchases power from Progress Energy.
One of the problems with these bills is that they allow the bar to be set ultra-low when considering an area to be 'serviced' by a broadband company. The speed only needs to meet the FCC's definition, which is pathetic. TWC has matched that for longer than I've had broadband, but our upload has not increased from 384k in well over 5 years.
I applaud the city of Wilson for (1) telling TWC that 384k upload is not acceptable, then (2) asking TWC and Embarq to build a network to Wilson's specs, then (3) doing it themselves when the incumbents declined.
The proposed legislation (thankfully, by the time I write this, has effectively been killed for this year in both the NC House and NC Senate) clearly only serves two types of corporation--telco and cableco.
Finally, if they want muni telecom providers to be treated under NC statutes as utilities, then Uverse, DSL, FIOS (if it ever reaches NC), and broadband cable should also be treated as a utility. Something tells me these companies would not be so happy to have their internet services fall under utility regulations... | |
|
| | adfoam
join:2004-11-28
King, NC | Re: Who cares what they do with their own money? I can say for CERTAIN based on NC Statutes No Broadband company wants to become a Utility in North Carolina. Because then a commission has to approve everything for Broadband companies, even price increases. | |
|
|
|
|
Time Warner Cable Tries North Carolina End Around
·