|
|
I guess bob didn't want us to see this...
....
Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source confirmed Thursday. TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just one programming service, the source said. The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and, thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal. Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services. Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules for digital-TV stations within 30 days. The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights for digital-TV stations. Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to court to force the agency’s hand. An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting. It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff, digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights. In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote. Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how she would vote. Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations. Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of channels on pay TV platforms. But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits. Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses -- need to bargain for carriage. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast must-carry was not directly addressed in that case. |
Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
times in the last month or so including today. I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry. I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5 to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way. I have said that Powell has resigned. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry altogether. I have talked about every aspect of this. Bob Miller Matthew L. Martin wrote: ... Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source confirmed Thursday. TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just one programming service, the source said. The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and, thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal. Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services. Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules for digital-TV stations within 30 days. The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights for digital-TV stations. Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to court to force the agency’s hand. An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting. It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff, digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights. In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote. Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how she would vote. Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations. Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of channels on pay TV platforms. But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits. Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses -- need to bargain for carriage. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast must-carry was not directly addressed in that case. |
Bob Miller wrote:
Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20 times in the last month or so including today. I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry. I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5 to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way. I have said that Powell has resigned. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry altogether. I have talked about every aspect of this. Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than you do. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than you do. Matthew Powell is against allowing broadcasters must carry of their multicast digital programming. I agree with him. Even if he loses the Supreme Court will overturn any decision by the FCC that allows multicast must carry IMO. So what are you talking about? Bob Miller |
Bob Miller wrote: That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry altogether. I have talked about every aspect of this. Bob Miller I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers for their High Definition broadcast). |
|
|
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
wrote: Bob Miller wrote: That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD. That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry altogether. I have talked about every aspect of this. Bob Miller I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers for their High Definition broadcast). Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_ going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to COFDM. He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been 100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect record. Matthew You are right it is confusing. Here it is in a nut shell: It is in our business interest that 8-VSB is permanent BUT that it have receivers that work fixed not mobile. That is why you find me ecstatic that 5th gen LG receivers work and we were one of the first to test them. It is in my and your personal interest that the US Congress not be able to be bought by every special interest that holds out a buck. That Congresspersons don't have to spend all their time raising money and have no time to do anything but rubber stamp legislation actually written by those special interest and which our Congresspersons don't even have time to read. It is in my personal interest that MY and YOUR spectrum be used with the best modulation that allows all of us to benefit the most at the least cost. So personally I am for a COFDM type modulation universally while it is in our business self interest that 8-VSB be permanently affixed to current broadcasters who thereby cannot compete with us while we use COFDM mobile and fixed. It is why a clear thinking Sinclair executive and top RF engineer, Nat Ostroff, is both happy that there is now a viable 8-VSB receiver and moans that long term broadcasters will be savaged by the likes of Qualcomm who can and will use COFDM to compete in the broadcast DTV market with the advantage of COFDM. Bob Miller Bob Miller |
Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws to include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to charge for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest here. Bob Miller Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it. If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free" option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC, etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via cable or satellite. So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers. It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical. Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must carry" mandate would give them a larger audience. So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting! |
Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt. Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film |
Frank Provasek wrote:
Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt. Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film Don't agree with the Sinclair political agenda but do agree with their engineering side. Bob Miller |
|
See in-line:
What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What if then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA. I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals) explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful, legal and informative). Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins. In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up the population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means free over the air broadcasting. This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable providers pay. Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working for them. They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV! This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners. Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are reaping the beneifts of their investment. But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with. Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't the right thing to do. As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations. |
wrote in message oups.com... See in-line: snip Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working for them. The number one thing promoted by cable companies to increase cable subscribers is DVRs. When enough fast forward button are in Americans homes how much value will ad time loose. I'am not a Sinclair fan but his decision not to give programing to anyone underminding his coperate value is fair on his part. They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV! This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners. Network programming is superior to a lot of cable programming and it HD content is growing at a good rate. If they have the money to fill the extra bandwidth with new or decent programming I could drop cable. OTA tuners will follow the same price curve as any type tuner, but even now there worth the cost to receive OTA. Being caught in the middle is unfortunate but if there's enough complaints something will change. |
|
See in-line:
Bob Miller wrote: They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA. They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a small sample of what is to come. If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's the public interest. It's not there yet. Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by some other factor. So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen. Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet???? I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said. I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of. Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the "transition" they are you selectively ignoring it. COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200... Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong). |
Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke" or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in. Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather. |
wrote in message oups.com... Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke" or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in. Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather. The producers of content benefit from product placement, that they share this revenue with Network affiliates is not likely, but if I'm wrong please correct me. Content producers and networks also generate revenue by selling season episodes on DVD, again do station owners benefit? Viewers benefit, well as long as they are not subjected to prime time infomercials masquerading as TV shows, with the networks and producers (IMO) responding to viewer demands for HD programming with much more zeal then content providers. Cable company have had the opportunity to weight their risk of shrinking revenue associated with DVRs and acted, as they should, in their best interest. While being offended by statements proclaiming individuals that advance thru or leave the room during commercial thieves it does illustrate the concern over digital recording. IMO suggesting that network providers only motivation for asking cable providers to pony up is greed is not all together fair. A business owner has to make decisions that will ensure that the company will survive, that the free TV business model would change to survive was never in question. |
|
wmhjr wrote:
You're nuts. Way too much of the population just can't reliably get either 8-VSB or COFDM content due to geographic constraints. That doesn't even begin to consider the factor of range and signal variables particularly with COFDM. Range? The supposed power advantage of 8-VSB is being definitely put to rest by Chinese test ongoing across China. COFDM with its latest algorithms (COFDM is constantly improving to) now has a 2.5 db advantage or almost 100% over 8-VSB. I will post more specific results as I get them. As to signal variables I don't know what you are talking about. The worst "geographical constraints" are places like New York City and this video show COFDM working all over that city Mobile from ONE 100 Watt amplifier where 8-VSB is not receivable with special antennas and 800,000 Watts. www.viacel.com/bob.wmv I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get a healthy dose of reality. For example, your proposed solution would be death to my area. To be clear - I will never, ever, be able to reliably get OTA content that will ever under any circumstances compare to cable or sat. Period. Where do you live? Our solution covers the entire US with a strong even signal at a far far higher power level than satellite and far more ubiquitous than current OTA. And with content that WILL compare favorably with cable and satellite and at less cost. I can respect the tenets of what you believe in, but can't accept the gross misrepresentation of reality. Sorry. Your reality not mine. Additionally, you completely fail to consider the effects of converged networking. That alone kills your premise deader than the proverbial doorknob. We fancy ourselves part of the converged networks of the future. An adjunct not a dinosaur. We consider our place in the converged networks of the future all the time as I have mentioned here often.\ Bob Miller |
Bob Miller wrote:
With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out. But where are these 5th generation tuners? I know LG has one that I believe is exclusive to some of their 2005 model HDTVs. Your case is basicly that 5th generation tuners pave the way for Sinclair and other broadcasters to break free from cable, but why? and how? 4th generation tuners are still $200 and People who are just now buying sets have more options (the 8VSB integrated sets are finally starting to become at least as common of HD Ready sets, but most of these are 4th gen tuners from best I can tell. So let's say three years from now all HDTV sets sold include 5th gen 8VSB tuners and let's even say that external 8VSB tuners will have dropped to around $40 by then and let's take it a step further and say that broadcasters have begun offering 16 channels OTA each by that time. Explain how exactly the OTA broadcasters are going to compete with cable? The only way they could compete is if they had subscribers. If they charged a monthly fee then free OTA goes away entirely (bad), but if they do that then they become a services company and have to build out the infrastructure to handle all of this. They would also **** off all of the public, because they would have elimate FREE OTA TV all togeather -and- they would be forcing the US public to pick betweeen NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.. and the cable stations. That makes no sense what so ever... it doesn't make good business sense. If they were competitors the idea thing to do would be to charge one other to carry the networks they own. If I understand correctly this is what happens now with cable/sat companies. If all of this content is offered for FREE OTA then again, they are not competing with cable, everyone would just have both. Some people may opt to leave their cable providers, but if the networks were wise they would offer their channels to any subscription based carrier they could find as it will widen their audience (it will always widen their audience until 8VSB tuners are free, because not everyone will have one), again if the OTA networks aren't charging a subscription FEE they are not competing with sat or cable. You could argue they are for advertising dollars, but the local networks have had them beat their for years. Cable companies are already building strategy against something like this. Time Warner offers digital phone (VoIP), digital cable and high speed internet for one flat monthly fee (discounted slightly to subscribers of all three services). In addition to High Definition DVR they have extended their on demand content to include about 100 free on demand programs each month. They have also recently added High Definiton on demand movies.... If OTA networks wanted to charge for service and compete the only way they will be able to is to appeal to the bottom end of the market. I'd love to hear your response. |
|
You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you don't have one. When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local, you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select 10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right. Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350 channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They will fail. In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share" networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around the question as you have the 8VSB. Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the means to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back customers you have lost over the years to cable? It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they have to pay... No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and offering a less expensive package. I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a satellite provider. They CAN'T by law charge for the free SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel now. OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters if they sign up as subscribers just like cable. All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB 5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these 300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription televison services There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with cable on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected for years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises. There If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they can combine services and provide a discount. -Jeremy |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com