5 ms·

I'm thinking the other way around. Telecoms will have incentive to not invest at all in states with stricter laws. Then in a few years they can say "See, it sti

• thatcat 9y ago
  I think it's far too late in this case, they've already invested in building out the infrastructure in CA.
  • mitchty 9y ago
    Additionally, it could point to active malfeasance if they start to selectively not rollout in CA. I don't think it would be too hard for a lawyer to pick apart any argument that the rules are that onerous that they can't upgrade in one populated state/city compared to another in another state. If anything it would make it easier to prove they're being disingenuous about upgrades I would think.
• lsc 9y ago
  > I'm thinking the other way around. Telecoms will have incentive to not invest at all in states with stricter laws. Then in a few years they can say "See, it stifles innovation!" That's gonna be hard for them; Rural areas are inherently more expensive to provide internet infrastructure to (you have to transmit the data much further for each customer) and the current economic situation is such that rural residents have less money; even if they demanded the same level of telecom service we demand here in the more urban areas, they simply can't pay what we can pay. Add to this the fact that the demand for good telecom services is going to be dramatically higher in technological centers, and I think that telecom companies are gonna have a hard time favoring the red states over the blue, no matter how much they might want to.