Thanks for the reply D-Tech.
Question. So the cableco get find a loophole to avoid a penalty. But why should a municipality continue to renew the franchise?
What is the average term of these agreements? Is it common for these agreements to have early termination provisions?
My reason for asking is based upon my situation. Century Communications has been telling its subscriber base for 2 years now "Internet access is coming! Internet access is coming!" My research indicates that they are far, far away from achieving this, while other densely populated areas see rollouts on a monthly basis. I understand this is a game of economies of scale & the need to expend large amounts of capital.
Century Communications is a comparatively small cableco with arguably limited capital relative to the TCIs & the Time Warners. They've struck a JV with TCI/@Home, but I see no progress whatsover. Why?
Editorial Comment:
Century Communication, while public, is controlled by a single investor, Leonard Tow, who IMHO, will eventually sell his controlling interest to the highest bidder at an excessive valuation. Paul Allen has been reputed to have an interest & has accumulated shares. While these corporate shenanigans have been taking place, one of the most computer saavy, computer literate, computer-oriented & above-average income level subscriber base goes without a prospect of cable internet access in the near future. I gotta think these municipalities (Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach, etc.) have an obligation to their residents to lean against their franchisee to deliver on their promise of I-access, or replace them with someone else who can. If this happens to Century, Mr. Tow could kiss his relative fortune good-bye. Comments welcome. |
