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