This is a pretty awful situation. I feel bad for the author. I've had two similar incidents in the past, although not quite as bad. Years ago I lived in an apa

This is a pretty awful situation. I feel bad for the author. I've had two similar incidents in the past, although not quite as bad. Years ago I lived in an apartment block with 9 apartments in the front building and 9 in the rear. This was the dialup era and I wanted (and assumed I could get) a 2nd line so I didn't tie up my primary line all the time. Turns out the telco had only run 10 lines to the rear building for whatever reason and I guess someone was using the "spare" already. Interestingly, this was in the deregulation era. The guy I spoke to felt bad and explained to me how now they couldn't by law provide more lines for free. In the spirit of "competition" they had to price it "fairly". Oh well. It was a rental and I moved a year later anyway. The second time was in the DSL era (which is still the case in Australia). The ACCC (sorta like an FTC/FCC hybrid) had decided that ISPs were allowed to install their own DSLAMs in the telephone exchanges. Well that worked well in some exchanges and not well in others. Some ran out of space for racks very quickly. There was no spare capacity for me there. However I did get put on a waiting list that resolved very quickly. Now this was in the very early days of ADSL where it was still pretty unusual. I've heard some horror stories about how it is now in some parts of the country. Anyway... There must be other people in their street/area who also aren't serviced by Comcast. Can't Comcast justify wiring up the street by adding a bunch of new customers? Also, the author mentions reading the franchise agreement but doesn't say anything more about it. I assume that means Comcast isn't required to service his area or at least isn't required to provide 100% coverage? And Comcast wants to merge with TWC? They can't manage their current network. Why on earth should we trust a combined entity will be any better?