Friday, July 1, 2016
RESPONSE TO GARY OLMAN BLOG POST RE ATLANTIC BROADBAND
I see now that the fairly lengthy "Anonymous" comment addressed to me and in the first person—and therefore ostensibly by you, Gary—has been removed from your blog. Assuming logically it was by you, it seems that you have really changed your tune.
In your June 9 post you said (a direct quote): "I like it, Dave! I watched the Atlantic Cable presentation and I am happy to say that this is the best offer I have seen so far. Not that I know a lot about the Broadband business. I love the pricing, I like the products they offered and I like their attitude."
I thought to myself: What a breath of fresh air from Gary Olman. There is hope!
Then it seems Carole and Esther took you to task on your blog for your position in favor, and you respond, making this last stab at it with Esther on June 10: "NO, you are not correct. The presentation included an explanation that Wi-Fi(Internet) could be excluded. So without that I am looking at the total cost of TV and Telephone and this looks good. Yes the Company is a new one, but but it is backed by a Canadian Company. So we have to wait and see." Good for Gary, I thought.
Then on your blog what is next? There is a complete turnaround in your position without any admission of this! It makes one wonder who got to you.
You are mistaken in thinking the Broadband Committee had practically decided on Atlantic Broadband. Atlantic's proposal, to begin with, was only a "preliminary proposal." The negotiations are just what the word implies, a back-and-forth thing—not only with Atlantic Broadband but also in seeing what AT & T and Comcast might counter with. Perhaps they will sweeten the pot. You write (wrote, I should say, because yours is now deleted) as though the Committee had almost settled on one company. The negotiations have only begun!
As for our paying for the whole cost of Atlantic's bringing cable to the Village, Dave Israel's comment to my blog post on his blog clarifies this. Many others, benefitting from the branch lines, will be paying most of the freight. The point is still, however: The expenses to the telecommunications company, no matter who the company and who the customer, are front-end loaded, and thus there is sense to a lengthy contract to spread the expense over time. I'm surprised you and your "experts" don't seem to get this.
When you (and others) disparage those with technical expertise on the Broadband Committee, I find it impossible to take you seriously, and I think many others in the Village feel the same. You blithely suggest that we don't need CSI, with their expertise in negotiating with these communications giants, and that the Bid Committee might do. Thank you, I'll take the word of those I respect for their technical knowledge that an experienced intermediary IS needed. When my primary physician, skilled in general medical things, says I need the cardiologist, I trust his opinion as opposed to that of my neighbor who comments on about everything.
Finally, for your interest—for your deleted comment broached this subject—I don't make the call about who gets to post on Dave's blog, nor do I decide whose stuff goes in the Reporter. I'm sorry if you're "out," Gary. Sometimes there is a good reason behind such moves, though. You might give this some thought.
By the way and just for the record, Gary, I don't intend to "go back and forth" with you on this subject. You've said (and almost as if begging for it!) that you'd like that. Sorry, it's not in the cards. I am not interested in giving you and those others who are dissatisfied with everything a soapbox.