Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Fri Dec 24 09:22:35 UTC 2010


On 12/23/10 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's municipal,
>> it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
>> enable competition by making it practical for competitors to start up, since
>> they'll have trival access to all comers.
>
> Muni-fiber builds do not "by definition serve every address."
>
But to keep this on topic, Comcast doesn't serve every address either!

In Ann Arbor, Michigan (home of NANOG), I spent many hours attending the
local cable board meetings.  Comcast refused to build toward various
*downtown* buildings, because the underground facilities would never pay
back the cost ("never" being upwards of 30 years).  This is not just an
ex-urban issue.

When the board explored non-renewal of Comcast's franchise for failing to
comply with its contract, they learned that's almost impossible.  Court
cases around the country side with the industry over municipalities.

In an unrelated Michigan case, where a large business signed a written
contract (to expand) in exchange for tax abatement (but didn't expand),
the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the contract was mere "fluff and
hyperbole" required to obtain tax breaks and government favors.

http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/7723/

It's a "right" to make taxpayers pick up the cost of subsidizing
private industry....




More information about the NANOG mailing list