21 ms·
That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections t
by brixon 9y ago
That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area.
What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evaluated from time to time.
- nickik 9y ago> providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area That is a argument often made by those ISPs but I don't believe it for a second. In Sweden remote rual villages get together, fund a fiber connection to their village (and quite often actually help dig) where some companies is allowed to lay fiber but is required to allow any ISP to compete. The market (and admittedly good general regulation in Sweden) leads to an effect where free people in voluntary association get together with private business). As long as you have single monopoly access these ISP will never update their infrastructure and voluntary offer higher speed and better service.
- pitaj 9y agoExactly. These franchise agreements are the real culprit behind the issues consumers have with ISPs. I'd much rather have a federal can on franchise agreements than Title II.