SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ray Jensen who wrote (917)5/24/1997 10:15:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio   of 12823
 
Ray, Interesting point you bring up:

""One point is that a city may not deny a cable franchise to a second competing cable company who agrees to terms that are relatively equal to the incumbent cable franchisee. ""

In '91 I had the pleasure of project managing a roll-out of a CAP in a large East Coast city. When it came to drawing up the final franchising terms, there was a competing CAP (who had filed at the same time) who saw fit to yield on the order of four more strands per municipal building than my client (CAP) was willing to do. Something like that, anyway. Net result? About a twelve or thirteen percent difference in the franchise fee [i.e.,23% right off the top vs. low teens at the time] in favor of the competitor. Talk about leverage! There was no purpose in going forward at that point. Oh well... those 565 boxes are obsolete now, anyway. <s>
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News