ranked choice ballots could fail them spectacularly because i can see a lot of them refusing to put anything down next to a name that isn't 'their guy'
city power here charges households $10 a month for that, the infrastructure and 'account servicing'; and bill usage at cost. electric distribution costs a hell of a lot more than coax. so make that hypothetical bill $20, then. better paying $20 for what you'll use and need than $100 for wasted service. it costs the big providers a few pennies per mbps to provide unthrottled, uncapped wireline broadband in the u.s., your bill is almost entirely profit for them.
and, not to forget, just because you have 1gbps or faster download available, doesn't mean the other end and the pipes in between can deliver at that rate.
if that were only possible here. i'd love to pay 10 percent of my bill for 10 percent of the speed. that'd be $10 for 50mbps. the cable company 'discontinues' slower speeds, calls it a 'free' upgrade (but you don't actually get it unless you know about it and call in and navigate their bullshit in order to actually get it 'free'), then raises rates anyway (even on those that did not 'upgrade'). every. single. year. the only other provider is the telephone company. needless to say, they're even worse.
he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras
but that council or whatever it was, do make the rules (local laws, ordinances) for that jurisdiction. they could do something if they wanted to. a simple ordinance prohibiting their use within their boundaries. but they do not, and they had already made up their minds--public input be damned.
when re-broadcast on television or cable, those older programs are often re-edited or literally sped-up (or a little of both) so they can have the current norm of 10-12 minutes of ad time per half-hour.
ranked choice ballots could fail them spectacularly because i can see a lot of them refusing to put anything down next to a name that isn't 'their guy'