>> Under what sets of governing precepts do each of these bodies (the fed and the county) project their respective authorities?
Thanks for taking the high ground, Frank. I needed some perspective and I like where you took that.
I don't know about other areas, but in the Seattle area there is a long history of confrontive interactions between TCI and various local municipalities: City of Seattle, King County, town of Issaquah.
In each of these cases, the confrontation has occurred after TCI failed to meet it's contractual requirements to complete plant upgrade and buildouts. In each case, TCI either did not do any work at all or only a small fraction (<%20). In each case, there was a history of repeated and intentional failure to comply with the contract terms. In each case, there had been repeated re-negotiation of the contract terms (after each failure).
More and more, the conclusion is that TCI does not do business in good faith and, while this may be annoying in the context of an entertainment provider (where reasonable alternatives exist), it is not acceptable in an public internet access provider ... in essence, a common carrier.
The thing to pay attention to, from the standpoint of an ATHM investor, is that TCI is increasingly viewed as an unacceptable entity to act as an internet service provider, where "increasingly viewed" is defined by the previously posted information.
See also:
archives.seattletimes.com
archives.seattletimes.com*&period=archive&query=Seattle+TCI&searchType=date
archives.seattletimes.com*&period=archive&query=King+County+TCI&searchType=date
Just review what's showing up in the Seattle press ... look at some of these articles ... get a feel for how much anti-TCI energy there is and how organized it's becoming.
This issue, and the under-performance issue, are the two major downside "news issues" I see affecting ATHM. By "news issue" I mean that sort of issue whose actual and emotional affect travels separately ... where emotion runs before reality. |
