4 ms·
A somewhat delightful potential side effect of having this being handled at the state level is the confusing and inconsistent array of rules varying state by st
by wycy 8y ago
A somewhat delightful potential side effect of having this being handled at the state level is the confusing and inconsistent array of rules varying state by state will hopefully make regulatory conformance a nightmare for Comcast et al.
- smsm42 8y agoWhy exactly is it delightful? Comcast would be happy to employ another couple hundreds of lawyers, and guess who gets their internet prices increased to pay for them? And the most "delightful" part is that since every provider would have these costs, they'd all be forced to bump the prices, and thus nobody is going to be losing market share for bumping them.
- wycy 8y agoI believe that the primary reason there are so many different public utility companies (e.g., electric, gas) is because of the patchwork of regulations in each locality makes it difficult to manage under one company. So it could have the effect of forcing large ISPs to either split altogether or at least divide themselves up into subsidiaries (e.g., Comcast New Jersey, Comcast Delaware). I may be wrong, but I've read this rationale before and it seems to make sense. Utility companies seem to generally correspond to the public utility commission that regulates them.
- smsm42 8y agoThere's no value in having sewers in New Jersey and sewers in Oakland, California belong to one company. I.e. same holding can own it, maybe, but there's not much network effect they gain, I think. Nobody from New Jersey would want to use Oakland sewer, or vice versa. But with telecom companies, there are advantages to that. People/companies in New Jersey might want to connect to people in California, and owning the big network may make it easier for Comcast to provide this service and lower the costs of it.