Ah, yes... /those/ numbers. Lyrically put, Valdis; thanks.
On July 19, 2014 6:28:26 PM EDT, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > >> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant. > >The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's >kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a >per-county >basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was >counted >as accessible to *the entire population* of said county. > >So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got >Comcast >because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their >street >because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the >line, >the FCC said all 50K had access to cable. > >Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the >people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are >scratching >their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers >say >everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers. > >I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a >severe >victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really >want realistic numbers published... -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
