Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Mon Dec 20 21:00:22 UTC 2010

In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
> whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say "there
> are no" are "this datum generalizes for all" in most all of this 
> and sister threads is a major error.  There is no national scope, 
> and the jury is still out if statewide scope [fpr video] is a good 
> or bad thing. 
> 
> Sorry to muddy with facts, please resume pontificating.

Facts are good.  It appears there are more areas with two or more
cable TV providers than I thought, and that knowledge is useful.
I still maintain that the current set of regulation, laws, and
economic realities have lead to insigifnicant compeition in that
area, but that's purely an opinion.

You are also correct that there is a lack of context in these
threads.  There is a federal role (FCC, congressional), a state
role (state PUC's), and a local role (county/city/town PUC's).
Looking from the perspective of a town it's clear some have cable
compeition, for example.  Look at it nationally, and it's a really
small percentage (on the order of under 2%, best I can tell so far).
One man's everyone is another's no one.

I guess the question is, if these overbuilds work out so well in the
cities where they do exist, why don't they exist more places?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20101220/26009c4a/attachment.sig>