On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:46:10AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo
> wrote:
> > Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
> > the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
> > SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
> > (RCN, WOW and several others). Nontrivial capital is required for the
> > build-and-maintain of physical plant, so most all have shrunk since the
> > bubble popping.
>
> Interesting, I figured a few major cities would have a second
> provider, being able to high a large high rise or apartment complex
> might make the economics make sense.
Different problems; the property management adds another administrative
layer to the sequence (locality/district/ward; city/town; state; federal)
which has varying powers for exclusivity. Which of course vary by
(locality/etc; city; state).
[snip]
> Which brings us back to the argument at hand, the problem is a
> combination of factors, regulatority (franchise issues), physical
[snip]
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.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
