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.
