4 ms·

Actually, yes it will. It'll set a low standard for cheap internet, thus making it economically viable for new boutique entrants to the ISP market, bringing wit

• mschwar99 16y ago
  I'd have more sympathy for this argument if government interference didn't play a large part in the construction of the status quo. In Canada, government regulation and taxpayer money played a significant role in building the infrastructure. In the US, government granted monopolies built the infrastructure and still serve to squeeze out competition. Government interference isn't a shiny new monster imposing itself on private sector infrastructure. Rather it has been a key player since the beginning and shaped the market in ways that need to be accounted for.
• pyre 16y ago
  > I don't believe in government interference. But that's just it. Most of the telecoms in the US and Canada were built off of government subsidies, guaranteed (regional or nation-wide) monopolies, and/or guaranteed profits (see AT&T in the US). How can you then say that the government needs to be 'hand off' with a market that they've already skewed in favor of certain players? Not to mention that Bell in Canada is regulated this way by the CRTC because they control the last-mile telephone lines for DSL. Legally they are the only ones allowed to lay such lines, so should the government allow them to do whatever they want with their government-granted monopoly?