5 ms·
The most obvious reason that I can think of is that most of these companies have near-monopolies in many local markets. The overarching point is that it's a cl
by AlisdairO 16y ago
The most obvious reason that I can think of is that most of these companies have near-monopolies in many local markets.
The overarching point is that it's a clear good for society. It doesn't have to be fair - we're not required to be nice, or fair, to corporations - they're not people. We're required to maximise the benefit of the citizens in the country. Sure, being 'unfair' to corporations can have negative long term outcomes, which is why you only do it in cases like these: where the outcome is so clearly a positive for the system as a whole.
- fnid2 16y agoI don't know if it is clearly positive for the system as a whole, because if telecoms can charge more, and generate more revenue from existing infrastructure, then they can get on to newer, fatter, and longer pipes. Right now, they are basically stuck paying for all the copper they bought. They can't buy new fiber. They can't install new towers, etc...
- AlisdairO 16y agoConsidering the current prices of US broadband, they ought to be making an absolute killing - particularly in urban areas. Compared to countries with different regulatory schemes, you guys pay a lot of money for not a whole lot. Even so - I'm not sure they're being prevented from charging more, necessarily - although the FEC would gain the power to do so if necessary. The main thing is, they're being prevented from charging in a discriminatory manner.