The Truth Behind The Baby Bells & 'Franchise Reform' - State legislators drunk from promises of lower TV prices
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
The Truth Behind The Baby Bells & 'Franchise Reform'
State legislators drunk from promises of lower TV prices
(old news - 11:11AM Friday Mar 23 2007)
tags: dsl · coverage · Op/Ed · legislation · Politics
While phone company lobbyists couldn't sell new "franchise reform" laws on the federal level via Ted Stevens, they've had great success convincing the FCC, state legislators (and the press and public) that stripping towns and cities of their regulatory authority will result in faster deployment of broadband and lower TV prices. While their lobbyists promise lawmakers cheap cable, the baby bells' primary goal is the elimination of build-out requirements, allowing them to maximize ROI by deploying services only to the most profitable neighborhoods. Phone companies get the added perk of avoiding locally mandated community improvements.

Here's perhaps a shocking newsflash: both phone and cable companies have absolutely no interest in lowering prices. In early markets now seeing both cable and telco competition, we've actually seen TV prices rise. And not just cable. U-Verse prices have risen twice since launch, and Verizon has raised FiOS TV prices by 7.6% since launch. AT&T execs have publicly stated they are interested in non-price competition. We'll also note that many of these bills being passed strip localities of rate regulation and all other consumer protection authority. Price reduction through less accountability? It's just not likely.

That brings us to the other promise by telco lobbyists: faster and broader deployment with the elimination of local authority. Faster? Verizon execs in moments of unscripted candor have publicly stated that the existing franchise system has not hindered deployment of FiOS. They've been happily signing franchises and getting FiOSTV deployed at an astounding rate. AT&T? They've simply decided to ignore local franchises and sue anyone who challenges them. The only thing slowing down AT&T IPTV deployment is AT&T (and perhaps muddy Microsoft code).

So does franchise reform mean increased deployment? Actually it means just the opposite, since most of the bills we've read eliminate build out requirements. If our country's goal really is universal coverage, does the elimination of build-out requirements really make sense? It certainly makes sense to phone company accountants and industry investors -- but does it make sense for consumers? For rural Americans? How about Americans in low-income neighborhoods? These lawmakers serve them as well, correct?

Missouri is the latest state to pass such laws, making it the twelfth state to institute telco-desired reform. A similar push is underway in several other states, including Iowa (Qwest) and Illinois (AT&T). Geneva, Illinois city IT director Peter Collins (who we recently interviewed concerning his fight against AT&T) offers us a link to his testimony (pdf) before the state. Collins takes issue with the telco suggestion (quickly becoming conventional wisdom in all the giggly press coverage we've seen) that local communities are greed-driven roadblocks on the road to broadband nirvana.

What's perhaps most disturbing in the phone companies campaign to convince the public that local franchises are the devil, is their use of supposedly pro-consumer groups to support their push. In a press release last week avidly supporting telco franchise reform, a number of seemingly "pro-consumer groups" praised the phone company vision. The National Association for the Deaf proclaimed "It matters a lot that broadband networks and their new interactive applications are widely available everywhere in America."


Curious about this enthusiasm, we contacted NAD to inform them that their support for telco "franchise reform" could potentially harm their constituents by limiting deployment, not increasing it. Frank Bowe, NAD's Governmental Affairs Consultant stuck by the company's position, and we're still waiting for a response from the organization's CEO. Page 34 of their 2004 annual report (the most recent available) lists Verizon & SBC (AT&T) as significant donors, and a telecom primer on their website was co-written by Verizon.

The demonization of the local franchise system has been a multi-year, sophisticated public relations effort aimed at passing laws that will kill build-out requirements, eliminate local accountability, and create a one-stop-shopping lobbying point for the nation's largest phone companies. The push is aimed at saving these companies money, and nothing else. The bills we've read offer no benefits to consumers. Don't drink the phone company lobbyist Kool-Aid that suggests killing local authority will result in broadband utopia, increased deployment, and lower prices -- because you are going to be disappointed.

Related:
  1. Monday Evening Links
  2. Tuesday Morning Links
  3. Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
  4. Let's Be Clear: ISPs Don't Want Accurate Public Broadband Data
  5. Here Comes The Connected Nation Sales Pitch
  6. Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial
  7. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  8. AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
Links: New Topic
Forums »

jjoshua @ 23rd Mar 11:26AM:
Cherrypicking plus USF?

So the phone co wants to cherry pick and then they will expect the USF to pay them to build out the less desirable areas?

Did I get that right?
reply
en102 @ 23rd Mar 11:38AM:
Re: Cherrypicking plus USF?

Wasn't it supposed to be representation by population... not representation by taxation? Of course that's in theory... not practice.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 11:42AM:
Sounds Good to Me

Sounds good to me. A commercial company shouldn't be forced to provide a luxury optional service to everyone, nor should they be required to fulfill such extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items. This is not a socialist state...yet. Allow the market to drive service deployments and costs.
reply
anon @ 23rd Mar 12:13PM:
Re: Cherrypicking plus USF?

said by jjoshua :

So the phone co wants to cherry pick and then they will expect the USF to pay them to build out the less desirable areas?

Did I get that right?
No, or not exactly. The phone companies expect the USF to pay them to build out phone service in less desirable areas. All of this has to do with the difference between being the monopoly incumbent and being the new competitor.

Phone service: Phone companies, as the ILECs, are heavily regulated. Cable phone service via VoIP is very lightly regulated (per the FCC), and allowed to cherry-pick.

TV service: Cable companies, as the incumbent franchised monopolies, are regulated, though somewhat lighter than phone companies since cable TV is seen as more of a luxury than phones. Phone companies, seeing their landline business slipping away to cable companies, want light regulation and the ability to cherry-pick.

Of course, it's all more complicated than that since the phone service and TV service (and Internet service) goes over the same physical infrastructure in many of these cases, particularly once the telcos upgrade an area.

I also never quite understand the editorial position on the USF. It appears to be for some kind of nebulous "reform" without specifying it. Somehow the current system is bad, but abandoning efforts to subsidize rural service would also be bad, and expanding the USF to affect new services is also bad. I'd be very interested in concrete suggestions as to the proper reform. I think that the FCC suggestions for competitive bidding for the local phone service USF-subsidized service are interesting, and possibly make more sense than the current system, where subsidies to at least some locales seem to be too high. (See the free long distance and free conference call businesses that rely for their profits on the regulated termination rates being too high.)
reply
DaveNJ @ 23rd Mar 11:53AM:
people got want they wanted

All people did here was whin, no competition. But instead of lobbying for a level playing field. They wanted on lop sided version against them. Why doesnt the cable co, use USF for expansion as well ? People were easily fooled into believing all the mistruths. Telco will always be about the same costs as cable. There is no way around it, the costs of installation etc. I want local control back, in fact i want the same laws appling to telcos that are applied to cable. One being the answer the phone in 3 rings or less. Hello Verizon ?
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales




reply
TKJunkMail @ 23rd Mar 12:02PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

Sounds good to me. A commercial company shouldn't be forced to provide a luxury optional service to everyone, nor should they be required to fulfill such extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items. This is not a socialist state...yet. Allow the market to drive service deployments and costs.
But the majority of supporters claiming wired TV (controlled by local pols) is a utility, and that everyone MUST have, and that must be price controlled are also supporters of a socialist state. They are against a government that provides a national defense, but they are for a government that decides what we can smoke and what we can eat and how we must educate our children and how we must provide sex education, etc. Socialism, nanny government, fascism - all part of the liberals great design for gracious living.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
russotto @ 23rd Mar 12:06PM:
Forget cable

Over the Air is still free. And it's not like you get much with cable besides a bunch more channels with mostly garbage.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 23rd Mar 12:19PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Companies wanting to compete SHOULD play on a level playing field. We have the Level Playing Field Statute in IL. I am all for competition, but not when one certain Telco wants preferential treatment to deploy - and only will serve the customers they deem worthy of their video service. Competition for some, but not all?

I also don't believe the munis need to be stripped of any local control. The system isn't broken here, and Verizon is deploying fiber and providing video after entering into local franchise agreements. Does anyone really want AT&T to have the power of eminent domain in their community? They can place a huge Lightspeed box in your yard if they deem it necessary, and there won't be a thing anyone can do about it at the local level if this horrendous legislation is passed in IL.
reply
justbits @ 23rd Mar 12:19PM:
Price competition? More likely value competition

»www.govtech.net/digitalcommuniti···id=99464

I just want to remind everyone about some past things said by AT&T.


When AT&T executives briefed analysts about the project in November 2004, they emphasized how Lightspeed would be built to "high-value" customers -- households that spend $160 to $200 a month for telephone, Internet and entertainment services.


Do you fall in that category? Maybe we need to take a poll here.

There likely will be little price competition between AT+T and cable TV. There likely will be a value competition between them. And in our materialistic society with everybody wanting the latest and greatest stuff, the price will not come down because the value will always be perceived as going up. What? AT+T has a new feature? What Cable now has the same feature? Ding! They both bump up their prices because the value of the product is now higher.

The only time I expect to see some price competition is in the initial offering of the product to customers. Hook them with a low price and feed them the drugsproduct that they are addicted to. Once they're addicted, they'll probably get used to paying those prices and never look back because the product is so much better now.
reply
soothsayer15 @ 23rd Mar 12:36PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition

You guys and the politicians don't know how it works. Everyone is quick to blame the Cable, Satellite, and Telcos for raising rates.

Rate increases are really caused by content providers, especially Disney and Viacom. Because Disney has ESPN, they can charge a premium and force companies to carry their "family of networks". All competition really does is slow down the price increases.
reply
jslik @ 23rd Mar 12:42PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

No, some of us believe in long-time conservative ideas like federalism - leaving national defense to the national government and leaving local right-of-way decisions to the local government.

"...Government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable."

-George W. Bush
reply
Blackened @ 23rd Mar 12:48PM:
Re: Cherrypicking plus USF?

said by jjoshua :

So the phone co wants to cherry pick and then they will expect the USF to pay them to build out the less desirable areas?

Did I get that right?
This is why municipal broadband, phone service, and TV is becoming ever more desirable.
reply
morbo @ 23rd Mar 12:52PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition

please enlighten us, then.

it is the cable companies choice to NOT OFFER a la carte. that would get around that disney/viacom garbage, right oh wise one?
reply
anon @ 23rd Mar 01:53PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
reply
Ahrenl @ 23rd Mar 01:13PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

I have issue with your use of the word "forced".

These companies aren't being forced to do anything. They're being offered the chance to provide service and build highly profitable assets on public ROW's in exchange for building out their network to communities that may not have a desirable adoption rate.

Much like if you want to build a house in said community you must abide by the permitting structure, electrical, waste disposal, and fire codes.

Frankly they'd still be better off if they built their own networks and allowed the private entities to compete to provide service on it, instead of inviting a previously abusive monopoly into their back yards.

Get some nice MBIA wrapped revenue bonds, and sell them into the hugely liquid Muni market with a 3.00% yield.
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 01:13PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

Extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items.
Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services. Both the Iowa and Missouri bills expressly forbid requirements to carry emergency alerts. Why? Because phone companies do not have emergency alert interconnects in place already and they are expensive to build.

Besides that, basic cable and institutional cable is used for distance education by many colleges and community colleges. The state level bills are scrapping institutional cable completely and severely restricting educational basic cable (especially facilities support, which is completely eliminated in almost every case).

The last factor of basic cable beyond a "luxury" is remote viewing of government meetings. Try telling the senior and disabled community that they should just show up to meetings if they are that interested. These state franchises are also restriction funding and channel access for government channels. The Missouri bill authorizes cable companies to remove these channels from basic cable completely.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:15PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

I won't dispute the need for local government to take care of the people,but I will argue the ability of local government to extort corporate entities beyond standard corporate taxation. Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 01:16PM:
Re: Forget cable

Unlike the east coast, most of the west and midwest do not get more than three over the air signals. Many incorporated areas are lucky to even get two (including some metros).
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 01:17PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition

said by morbo :

it is the cable companies choice to NOT OFFER a la carte.
Well, that, and the disney/viacom or abc/espn retransmission consent contracts that specify that the channels cannot be offered a la carte.
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 01:19PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?
Because the McDonald's franchises are built on private property, unlike the CATV and phone providers.
That would also be why satellite television is not required to pay local governments.
reply
morbo @ 23rd Mar 01:23PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition


fine with me. i'll just get the channels that DO offer it.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:23PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

I agree, there should be no preferential treatment in any direction. Government should allow (not mandate) commercial entities to serve customers and the commercial entities should not expect special treatment or protection from government. I don't necessarily have issue with franchise agreements in general, however I do see a problem when the franchise agreement goes above and beyond allowing a commercial businesses the ability to operate and provide service. I do not believe businesses should be required to fund local interest items. I do not believe businesses should be mandated to provide service to every citizen for luxury items. As for placing equipment in the ROW, that's progress. How should businesses provide services to citizens if they aren't allowed to place equipment?
reply
jslik @ 23rd Mar 01:23PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

I won't dispute the need for local government to take care of the people,but I will argue the ability of local government to extort corporate entities beyond standard corporate taxation. Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?
Requiring build-out, access channels, or I-Nets isn't extortion. All those requirements are specifically allowed under federal law, which the telcos/cable folks have signed off on several times in the past. The telcos lack of foresight regarding the marketplace shouldn't be blamed on local government.

McDonald's isn't locating their facilities on public land, so they don't have to pay rent to the city, which the franchise fee truly is.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:34PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

I'll grant you that 'forced' might not have been the best word choice. I'm all for following local codes and requirements. Every person and business should do so. I don't think that businesses should be required to serve every residence just for the opportunity to "open up shop" in a community. Should a cellular phone company be required to stand up a new transceiver closer to my house if my half of the city isn't covered just so the cellular provider has the opportunity to maintain their other transceivers?

I like the concept of a neutral infrastructure with a reselling capability. I don't think it will ever happen on a large scale though :(
reply
karlmarx @ 23rd Mar 01:37PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Socialism? Um, no, federalism. The point is, you aren't a real conservative, you are a capitalist pig. To you, the only good law, is a law that benefits the corporation. To the rest of us, we prefer the government to act in the best interest of the people. You know, living, breathing things that make us human.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
reply
karlmarx @ 23rd Mar 01:42PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Forced is exactly the word you should use. Remember, the cable/telco's are using PUBLIC LAND, to run their wires. It's in the publics BEST INTEREST to force them to provide universal service.

Look at it this way. If we left it to the megacorps, most farms and rural houses wouldn't even have electricity. The cost to run poles and wires to a farmhouse FAR outweigh any return they provide, but without electricity, we wouldn't have many farmers now, would we. It's the same with telephones, cable tv, and cell phone service. If they want the RIGHT (notice, it's a RIGHT, and a PRIVILEGE) to provide service, then we, the people, set the conditions they must meet before we allow them to do so. It's called democracy, where the greater public good out weights the rights of the megacorps.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:42PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

I guess I've miscommunicated my point. I don't have a problem with businesses franchising (leasing) the ability to provide service to a community. My intention was not to argue paying for ROW use. My point is that is where the business' obligation to the community should end. Businesses lease access to the ROW and then provide services as they deem appropriate.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:46PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Not that it's relative, but you're right, I'm not a hardcore conservative...I never claimed to be ;) And no, there are plenty of good laws that benefit more than just the "megacorps". I do believe government should act in the best interest of all of its citizens...both corporate and otherwise. There is a comfortable middle ground, it just needs to be found.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 01:54PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by marigolds :

Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research right now. I've sadly based my comments on what I've read on this forum...I know that's dangerous.
said by marigolds :

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services.
Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV? I'm not sure I'm following your logic of "optional services". To me, optional is that I choose to pay for CATV and it's not "necessity" like water, electrical, PSTN service, etc. (some of which I disagree with btw).
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 02:06PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

How is it in the public's best interest to force universal service? How is in your best interest, or mine for that matter, to pay higher fees because a provider is mandated to serve everyone?
said by karlmarx :

If they want the RIGHT (notice, it's a RIGHT, and a PRIVILEGE) to provide service, then we, the people, set the conditions they must meet before we allow them to do so.
I'll tag along with this comment. If consumers want the RIGHT (it is most definitely a privilege) to purchase my service, then businesses set the conditions to be met before providing service. Mainly, pay them what it costs to enable a sufficient ROI for all customers.
reply
DaveNJ @ 23rd Mar 02:08PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 02:10PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV?
I am not certain for Florida, but for Oregon and Iowa, the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it. Limited basic is just emergency alerts plus access channels (and sometimes broadcast affiliates, it varies by city). Low income residents get limited basic for free, seniors get it for a reduced cost. The city makes this up to the cable company through reduced franchise fees (the cable company gets to deducted the discounted or free service from their gross revenue used to calculate the franchise fee).

This actually brings up another component to this. All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service. A homeowner cannot say "sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to cable, so I don't want you to run wires to my residence". They must give every television franchiser access to building to run service even if they are not subscribing.
The reasoning behind this is to ensure that every new resident (especially renters) of the city can have access to the essential community components of basic cable, the emergency alerts and the access channels. In many cities, rental permits carry a condition of access to cable television or reasonable substitute (like an aerial capable of picking up a minimum number of emergency alert carrying stations) for this reason (even if the rental unit is not in a mandatory buildout area).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
soothsayer15 @ 23rd Mar 02:23PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition

said by morbo :

fine with me. i'll just get the channels that DO offer it.
You're missing the point, which is no company offers a la carte. You're in Lindale, so you probably have Suddenlink. Since Suddenlink carries ESPN, Disney will require they carry ESPN2, ESPN News, probably ESPN-U, and the Ocho (j/k). Viacom carries MTV and requires that VH1, VH1 Classics, BET, BET Jazz (maybe),Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, Spike, and TV Land be carried as well.

Any company that carries those networks will not be allowed to give a choice of which ones you want to keep.

The cable companies didn't carry the NFL Network for a while because the NFL wanted an arm and a leg for it. Football is king. The cable companies argument was that the amount they were asking would force them to pass the price on to customers, even if they don't watch football. Cable won't have a choice because the NFL Network carries Thursday and Saturday games now. Cable has to offer it, or lose football fans (the all important 18-49 year old males advertisers love) to Verizon and the Satellite companies.

BTW, DirecTV's basic service just increased from $44.99 to $49.99.
reply
Ahrenl @ 23rd Mar 02:28PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by DaveNJ :

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.
Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart.. :D

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism
reply
Ahrenl @ 23rd Mar 02:36PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

I'll grant you that 'forced' might not have been the best word choice. I'm all for following local codes and requirements. Every person and business should do so. I don't think that businesses should be required to serve every residence just for the opportunity to "open up shop" in a community. Should a cellular phone company be required to stand up a new transceiver closer to my house if my half of the city isn't covered just so the cellular provider has the opportunity to maintain their other transceivers?

I like the concept of a neutral infrastructure with a reselling capability. I don't think it will ever happen on a large scale though :(
If they want to build the towers on Public property, they should have the expectation that one of their covenants for use of the space is to serve the entire community that owns said space. If you're not providing service to me, then you're misappropriating my share of the public space granted to me as a residence of the township.

Another reason for the need of public access is the physical impracticality of every citizen attending ANY local government function. There are 30,000 people in my town, should we drive down to Gilette stadium for every selectman's meeting/town meeting/school committee meeting/finance board meeting/zoning board meeting/conservation board meeting/DPW meeting etc.?
reply
jslik @ 23rd Mar 02:42PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

My point is that is where the business' obligation to the community should end. Businesses lease access to the ROW and then provide services as they deem appropriate.
I understand, and that's certainly a point worth arguing. My position is that providing those community communication enhancements above ROW lease/fees benefits everybody, including the provider.
reply
DaveNJ @ 23rd Mar 02:45PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Ahrenl :

said by DaveNJ :

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.
Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart.. :D

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism
Because you are incapable of reading 3 or 4 sentences, if you re-read what i wrote. Why do liberals do it so much, if its not in there ideology ? Liberals today seem to be using it over and over. So without a academic answer. Why are liberals being facist ? Its supposed to not be liberal ?
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales




reply
wstwrdho @ 23rd Mar 02:50PM:
The history of the cable world.........................

First, the cable companies requested utility status in 1974 so they could gain access to easements and have access to subsidies just like the telcos. As a mater of fact the Bells were positioned to enter the cable tv business if this happened. This was rejected and the cable co's went to the cities with what became the current franchise process so they could access public property (easements) to place cable. Cable was regulated to a business and not a utility and the bells moved on. TV was not considered a lifeline service.

Second, the cable companies then built into areas with no competition that had a 50% to 70% penetration potential (TCI had an overall penetration of 56%). 30% was needed for payback. They were forced to build in lower density areas through the franchise agreements but were granted the right to recover the installation costs through an added hardship fee charged to the customer.

Third, now the market has an incumbent provider in the cable company so the prospect of a competitor gaining the %30 penetration needed for payback is much harder to justify. The franchises granted back in the beginning doesn't reflect market reality that exists today. That means its time to change them and that is what all this maneuvering is all about.

Fourth, why would an potential competitor consider service in boogerville usa when he could do a solo franchise for industrialgrowthville usa. Industrialgrowthville isn't going to protect or provide services to any city outside their own and with good reason. A state franchise could be used to insure that boogerville is covered at some point down the road if handled right.

Food for thought
reply
TKJunkMail @ 23rd Mar 02:58PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Ahrenl :

Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart.. :D

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism
Actually they are not. The most well known fascist society was NAZI Germany.

National Socialist German Workers' Party
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

More:
»www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4950532.html
»rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html
»ask.yahoo.com/20050920.html
fascism contains elements of both "left and right ideology"
»www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositi···ism.html
The difference between fascism and socialism is a fine point in practice. In intent they may differ, but in practice both tend toward consolidation of political power. Socialism typically favors central ownership to a greater degree (in the extreme of communism, all appreciable property is centralized) while fascism emphasizes state control over exchanges more than state control over property itself. With different emphasis, both are based on forced intervention with the individual human acts of creation and voluntary exchange, making creation and exchange involuntary.

--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
karlmarx @ 23rd Mar 03:04PM:
Re: Price competition? More likely value competition

You stated the point perfectly. The problem is that the megacorps are illegally bundling their channels. Congress need s to pass a law forbidding that.

I would get cable, if I could buy the channels I wanted. I.e. The networks, then Sci-fi, Discovery, TLC. But I'm not willing to pay more that 20.00 a month for it. Instead, I get all my shows OTA (I'm close to a city, so I get great reception). For my other shows, hell, I get torrents.

To the cable company, I will never be more than a $20.00 a month person, so it's not profitable to serve me. Just like sprint found out, I was tired of paying 60.00 a month, so now I use prepaid cell phones, and my bill is about 15.00 a month. Just like Verizon, I stopped paying 50.00 a month, and don't even use a land line anymore. I'm PROUD to say, that my total entertainment/communincation budget is now just 45.00 a month (just over $500.00 a YEAR).

I see every movie I want (torrents), watch every tv show I want (torrents), get 10/10 internet access (30.00 a month), and still get a good 150 minutes a month on my cell phone. Granted, I have a work cell phone for most of my calls.

To the megacorps, I'm just evil. In Comcast's mind, I should be paying $250.00 a month for their overpriced, crappy service. Hell, $3000.00 a year vs. the $500.00 a year I spend? I don't know about you, but I can use that $2500.00 a year for better things than giving to the megacorps.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
reply
RJ44 @ 23rd Mar 03:18PM:
Cherry picking vs nada

Does anyone actually believe that requiring Telcos to do a community-wide buildout will result in them offering IPTV to *more* subscribers than if they could pick and choose?

IMO they would just walk away and nobody gets IPTV in that community. At least with statewide franchises they will offer it in profitable areas, and as time goes by and costs go down, the definition of a profitable area will change to include more and more places.
reply
Varlik @ 23rd Mar 03:39PM:
Re: Cherrypicking plus USF?

said by Blackened :

said by jjoshua :

So the phone co wants to cherry pick and then they will expect the USF to pay them to build out the less desirable areas?

Did I get that right?
This is why municipal broadband, phone service, and TV is becoming ever more desirable.
True but if it ever really takes off large scale across the nation the telco's and Cable co's will move at breakneck speeds to kill it at the federal level.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill.

--Don't bother telling us that we're too loud. Cause there ain't no way that we'll ever turn down.
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 03:59PM:
Re: The history of the cable world.........................

said by wstwrdho :

A state franchise could be used to insure that boogerville is covered at some point down the road if handled right.
That is one of the major problems. Not the state level franchise concept itself, but how the state level franchises are being handled.
Look at the Iowa law: mandatory buildout only for unserved incorporated areas with no other provider with 250 households per 4000 fiber feet within 4000 feet of existing facilities, and the rules only apply to providers with 500,000 or more access lines (there are 1.2 million households in the state) and 50%+ penetration in the incorporated area.
And the state board has no enforcement powers. The law explicitly states that the buildout clause can only be enforced by the courts.
(This is better than Missouri which has no mandatory buildout at all and forbids any state or municipal entity from creating a mandatory buildout requirement of any level.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 04:15PM:
Re: Cherry picking vs nada

said by RJ44 :

At least with statewide franchises they will offer it in profitable areas, and as time goes by and costs go down, the definition of a profitable area will change to include more and more places.
Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years. There will be fewer profitable areas rather than more. We would need to get rid of syndex if we want the costs of television retransmission to go down.
If you look at the cable and television factbooks over time, coverage has gone up considerably since mandatory buildout ordinances started happening.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
ross @ 23rd Mar 05:02PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

Not that it's relative, but you're right, I'm not a hardcore conservative...I never claimed to be ;) And no, there are plenty of good laws that benefit more than just the "megacorps". I do believe government should act in the best interest of all of its citizens...both corporate and otherwise. There is a comfortable middle ground, it just needs to be found.
There is no middle ground with the corporate state.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 05:11PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

It's not a corporate state. Where did you pull that from?
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 05:18PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Ahrenl :

There are 30,000 people in my town, should we drive down to Gilette stadium for every selectman's meeting/town meeting/school committee meeting/finance board meeting/zoning board meeting/conservation board meeting/DPW meeting etc.?
Until you show me that all 30K people are actually interested in attending such meetings, your point is null, IMO.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 23rd Mar 05:33PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

In this case (IL) no one is preventing AT&T from deploying any services. They simply do not want to play on a level playing field with competitors. They want preferential treatment and the ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 05:38PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by marigolds :

the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it.
Do they buy the TV that goes along with it? If someone is really that poor, I would think that CATV access is the least of their worries. Where does the socialistic mindset end?
said by marigolds :

All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service.
I assume your talking about apartment/office complexes and not necessarily private residences?
reply
marigolds @ 23rd Mar 05:59PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

I assume your talking about apartment/office complexes and not necessarily private residences?
Applies to private residences too, but the private residences do not have to allow anything beyond the walls of the building and the cable company has to make reasonable modifications to their building plans.
Basically, the property has to be wired and the cable company can place a pedastal on the property for service.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
openbox9 @ 23rd Mar 06:47PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Octopussy2 :

ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.
/Flame retardant suit engaged....
That's the part I don't have a problem with per se. If the ROI isn't there, don't force the providers' hands into a money losing situation that costs other customers extra money to make up for.
reply
anon @ 23rd Mar 07:16PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
KrK @ 23rd Mar 07:16PM:
Oklahoma drank the Kool-Aid.

Or you could say they fed us the special peanut butter.

Or that we've been eating the Cuts 'n Gravy pet food.

None of this is a surprise, sadly. What is a surprise is the number of people who not only fall for it, but actually champion or defend the ILEC's for it.

So how many years are we going to have to hear the "It's the Geography" or the "Population Density" excuses while the USA falls behind? /sigh
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
nunya @ 23rd Mar 07:34PM:
Golly...

Gee - it almost sounds like the phone company is in business to make money!
--
I LOVE the ignore feature!
reply
batterup @ 23rd Mar 08:04PM:
So you put your trtust in lawyers.

The Central Office I am served from is in Netcong a town of less than 1 square mile. The Netcong CO serves people in 4 towns and two counties. The way Verizon deploys FIOS is by CO not town.

Why should I have to wait for Verizon go get approval from 4 towns and two counties before I get FIOS?

Keep up the self-serving-pork and the US of A will fall farther in network capacity. Until the government can regulate return on investment, as they did for 100 years, they should not regulate services what must be provided.




reply
Octopussy2 @ 23rd Mar 08:14PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

There are many communities in IL that are not served by AT&T right now - because it is not profitable for them to do so. They have a right to choose who they enter into an agreement with. If they don't like the rules of the game, and the Level Playing Statute (designed to protect consumers), no one is saying they have to play. Verizon is choosing to play. AT&T wants to make their own rules in the name of "competition" - and wants to sue towns that don't agree with their way of looking at things. They don't want any competition from munis that could offer competitive services though. Heck no! They feel THAT is unfair. They want to be in the business of telling Gov. what they can and cannot do and have the governmental power of eminent domain, yet don't want any Gov. involved in competing with the private sector. Hmmmmmm. Why do they get to have it both ways? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander....
reply
batterup @ 23rd Mar 08:14PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by DaveNJ :

Because you are incapable of reading 3 or 4 sentences, if you re-read what i wrote. Why do liberals do it so much, if its not in there ideology ? Liberals today seem to be using it over and over. So without a academic answer. Why are liberals being facist ? Its supposed to not be liberal ?
I'll be honest I did not read most of this thread but a definition is in order.

Fascism is when government and business work hand in glove. An example is the New Jersey automobile insurance laws. We are forced to buy high price insurance with all of the bells and whistles buy the government. This money goes to a business that makes huge profits on the money the government foresees to pay. That is fascism.

Just for the record that was put in place by a Homosexual, Democratic Governing.
reply
batterup @ 23rd Mar 08:22PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Octopussy2 :

The system isn't broken here, and Verizon is deploying fiber and providing video after entering into local franchise agreements.
Verizon is deploying but also lobbying for state franchise law. New Jersey now has a state franchise law and FIOS is now being run in Netcong.

All it would take to throw a monkey wrench in a FIOS deployment would to have one town to make unreasonable demands. FIOS is deployed by Central Office not towns.

FIOS is expensive to deploy, and feeding pork to every two bit hustling hog makes it much more so.
reply
batterup @ 23rd Mar 08:27PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by karlmarx :

Forced is exactly the word you should use. Remember, the cable/telco's are using PUBLIC LAND, to run their wires. It's in the publics BEST INTEREST to force them to provide universal service.


The phone company doesn’t' need a towns permission to maintain the cables. The town comes into play only with granting permission to deliver TV over the wires.

This place has been lied to by the likes of Teletruth for so long and hard the facts are buried beneath massive mountains of B.S.
reply
hoyleysox @ 23rd Mar 09:47PM:
hastily written rebuttal

Putting regulatory authority in every county raises prices by forcing companies to adopt distinct procedures and policies in every municipality. If it is so good to have regulatory authority in every city, why not let every city block have regulatory authority?

If you force people to buildout in areas where the demand or low and/or the cost of installation is high, it raises prices. Why force companies to install service where people don't care if they have it?

The fact is when buildout requirements force companies to provide service in unprofitable areas, someone pays. Everyone else.

Hmm.. why does AT&T ignore local franchises? Because they lose money. End of story.

gotta go. by.
reply
RJ44 @ 23rd Mar 09:55PM:
Re: Cherry picking vs nada

said by marigolds :

[Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years.
I was referring to the costs of fiber optic transmission equipment, DSLAMs, routers, etc used by telcos to provide IPTV, all of which is steadily trending downwards and will continue to do so. That's the investment a telco has to foot to get into the business. Programming costs are applicable to anyone who wants to provide programming, not something that the telcos have to pay that incumbents don't.

Either way, my original question still stands. Does anyone think a telco is more likely to serve a community if they have to build out in unprofitable areas as well as profitable? If so I have a great deal on some prime land in the Everglades I can tell you all about :)
reply
houselog442 @ 23rd Mar 10:54PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by karlmarx :

Socialism? Um, no, federalism. The point is, you aren't a real conservative, you are a capitalist pig. To you, the only good law, is a law that benefits the corporation. To the rest of us, we prefer the government to act in the best interest of the people. You know, living, breathing things that make us human.
Sounds like more whining from the communist pinkos on the left that want America to live in a Big Brother state! When I saw that Hilary 1984 the zombies sitting in the crowd remind me exactly of communist liberals; mindless and stupid.

Like I have said before, anybody who thinks like a communist liberal is a complete mentally retarded moron that is incapable of rational thought. When I see a liberal, I see someone in the special ed class that does nothing but drool, cry, shit and piss themselves. Communist Liberalism is basically an admission of inferiority, a class of sub-human retards that is as annoying as that crap that grows in your eye lashes when you wake up in the morning. That is also why the communist left supports Islamic terrorism. When communists see Muslims they see the same characteristics as themselves; Evil, oppressive, mindless little monsters! The only good communist is a dead one!
reply
fiberguy @ 23rd Mar 11:18PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by karlmarx :

Socialism? Um, no, federalism. The point is, you aren't a real conservative, you are a capitalist pig. To you, the only good law, is a law that benefits the corporation. To the rest of us, we prefer the government to act in the best interest of the people. You know, living, breathing things that make us human.
I hate to tell you part of your flaw.. but, um, you know those living, breathing things you talk about? They too own businesses and are part of those corrupt corporations. What YOU are being is an extremest.. you're so far one sided that you forget that we the people own those businesses.

All I'm telling you is not to forget that.. I know that corporations are corrupting government, more so - the parties, but we're all in the same society. Don't empower business and corporations with the notion they are in some different league.

It's the person that is greedy, not the corporation or business... after all, we are all in this world for ourselves.. not the greater good.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown
reply
fiberguy @ 23rd Mar 11:20PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by batterup :

said by DaveNJ :

Just for the record that was put in place by a Homosexual, Democratic Governing.
.. those damn homosexuals.. they're ruining the world!!! It's all the fault of the homosexual! :uhh:

Don't be a dick!
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown
reply
fiberguy @ 23rd Mar 11:23PM:
Re: Forget cable

Where do you live? the middle of the rockies 100 miles away from the nearest town?

..try again.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 23rd Mar 11:49PM:
Re: hastily written rebuttal

How exactly are you determining "where people don't care to have it"? Again, AT&T and other telcos are not forced to install service anywhere. They can choose to deploy or not.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 23rd Mar 11:52PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Do you know of such a town that has made such unreasonable demands?
reply
marigolds @ 24th Mar 12:49AM:
Re: Forget cable

I live here:
»maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q···168&om=1
We get two OTA signals.
reply
batterup @ 24th Mar 02:37AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by fiberguy :

those damn homosexuals.. they're ruining the world!!! It's all the fault of the homosexual! :uhh:

Don't be a dick!
So if you read homosexual you think of dick. Don't get me wrong, its OK to be gay.
reply
batterup @ 24th Mar 02:43AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Octopussy2 :

Do you know of such a town that has made such unreasonable demands?
In NJ there are 328 towns, it is an unreasonable demand to burden a network provider with having to feed pork to 328 hogs. The pork has been set by the state and applies to all.

Really, I don't care. FIOS is being run in Netcong, batterup will soon ride the light. batterup's 85 year old father is at this point in time riding the light. You people can kiss a leach and stay on dial-up.
reply
fiberguy @ 24th Mar 05:11AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

no... but your post was really way off course.. and stupid.
reply
tmc8080 @ 24th Mar 08:34AM:
wake up and smell the rate INCREASES..

Telcos's offerings is NOT less expensive than the alternatives!! They are equal or higher than what cable and satellite offer today. Verizon's per set top rentals at $5/month std, $12/month hidef, and $19 hidef/dvr!! They are holding you upside down for every last penny!!! Robing you deaf dumb and blind with franchise fees which are generally not disclosed until you get your first bill?! Sounds vaguely familiar to those who have POTS, or CELLULAR phone service for all the $XX dollars per month tack-ons.

But what does the cable industry offer in return?! $100 triple play for ONE YEAR ONLY as a lure? Pfft!
That's not real competition and states better wake up already, or the ftc will have to go back to the drawing board on LIMITING cable tv rate increases which will affect Verizon/Telcos just as much as Cablecos!!
reply
MrsMiller @ 24th Mar 09:27AM:
Re: Forget cable

As for me, I live in Central Texas, on the side of a small hill, amongst towering pine trees. I am also in the protected habitat of a local amphibian and not allowed to clear land without special permits. I am 50 miles from Austin, TX and can receive an intermittant signal from one of their TV stations. Because of the trees, I have no clear view of the southern sky for satellite signals. DSL is not available in my area. Even wireless is spotty in this area. If I want TV or broadband internet my only choice is cable.

You don't have to be in a total wilderness to be limited.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 24th Mar 10:45AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

So, that would be a "no" about a specific town?
reply
marcos04 @ 24th Mar 11:38AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

"Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements."

The FCC quoted telco testimony about a Florida municipality making similar demands in their December 20th Ruling on video franchising. Representatives of the Florida municipality claimed in the press that the story was entirely a fabrication.

But . . . AT&T did donate 1 million to a community center in Illinois. But this was a personal project of Congressman Bobby Rush. In exchange Rush signed on as a co-sponsor of the Barton-COPE Bill in the House. Not exactly a city extorting a corporation - more like a corporation buying political patronage.

Cable TV is a hugely profitable industry. In NYC alone, Time Warner posts over 1.3 billion in gross revenue. It's completely acceptable for local municipalities to request non-commercial channels and access facilities, iNets for municipal and emergency services, and fee set-asides to manage and maintain public right of ways.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Mar 11:46AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by marcos04 :

It's completely acceptable for local municipalities to request non-commercial channels and access facilities, iNets for municipal and emergency services, and fee set-asides to manage and maintain public right of ways.
In your opinion. In my opinion, it is a tax on the people because they will pay for these amenities in higher prices. It is just a sneaky way for local pols to tax their constituents while blaming someone else for the higher cable costs.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
anon @ 24th Mar 01:20PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
TechBob @ 24th Mar 03:48PM:
Re: hastily written rebuttal

Not exactly true, In the Great state of Kentucky, the PSC will step in and require" Bellsouth" or "The New At&t",which ever you prefer, to provide telephone service to a customer. In a timely manner too. So you can't generally say we aren't forced to provide basic service.
reply
Octopussy2 @ 24th Mar 06:23PM:
Re: hastily written rebuttal

I was speaking about deploying video services - not phone.
reply
fiberguy @ 24th Mar 07:22PM:
Re: Forget cable

but you can do things to get signals... put your dish on a mast, cut down a few of the trees.. move closer to civilization. Your post had nothing to do with what I said. Another user made claims that even in metro areas, the most people can get is 2 channels.. I called him on the carpet and you come back to tell me your rare exception story.

The only limit placed on you is your own desires of personal choice. Should you, in your situation, have the same access as the rest of us that drudge the city to have them? Should you have choices living where you chose to? I'd say you're lucky to have cable where you're at.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown
reply
batterup @ 25th Mar 12:02AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by fiberguy :

no... but your post was really way off course.. and stupid.
Thank you. You are the undisputed master of stupid. How long ago did The Telephone Company show you the door?
reply
batterup @ 25th Mar 12:04AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Octopussy2 :

So, that would be a "no" about a specific town?
Is having to building a swimming pool unreasonable? Is setting up a permanent $50,000.000.00 a year scholarship to be doled out by the local hogs unreasonable?
reply
Octopussy2 @ 25th Mar 02:09AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Again, name the specific town and proof.
reply
batterup @ 25th Mar 09:20PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by Octopussy2 :

Again, name the specific town and proof.
You have no standing to do anything concerning this issue so why would I waste my time?
reply
krayzie bone @ 25th Mar 10:43PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Can you please go away? you have absolutely nothing to add of value or anything factual for that matter.

haha i laugh at your big brother comment. If anyone wants to have a big brother state, it's your lovely, patriotic hero George W. Bush. It's the media (TV, radio, ink) that wants to control us and the way we think. Looks like they already have a foothold on your soul...
reply
Ahrenl @ 26th Mar 03:41PM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9 :

said by Ahrenl :

There are 30,000 people in my town, should we drive down to Gilette stadium for every selectman's meeting/town meeting/school committee meeting/finance board meeting/zoning board meeting/conservation board meeting/DPW meeting etc.?
Until you show me that all 30K people are actually interested in attending such meetings, your point is null, IMO.
In that case, I could care less about your opinion. It is arbitrarily null, for the same ridiculous reason. :P

We had so many people show up at a town meeting 6 months ago that we had to setup TWO overflow areas, linking them by cell phones. When both these auditoriums, and the main auditorium were packed full, people, invariably turned themselves away.
reply
marigolds @ 27th Mar 12:06AM:
Re: Forget cable

I don't think you looked at the map I put up.
I live in the Willamette Valley, home of over 2 million people and four separate metropolitan areas including the one I live in.
I do "drudge the city" and do not have access to over the air channels.
reply
openbox9 @ 28th Mar 07:04AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

Ok, your experience is different than what I've seen in several communities. Must be nice to have a community that cares.
reply
Ahrenl @ 28th Mar 11:12AM:
Re: Sounds Good to Me

It's amazing how many people will show if you tell them you're either going to fire teachers or raise taxes for them umpteenth time. People got real fired up..
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC