Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>]

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